Michael Jackson legal battle shifts to the will

By Eriq Gardner

Another day, another round of Michael Jackson legal news.

Yesterday, we reported about the inevitable filing of the late singer's last will and testament. Nothing too shocking was contained the will (beyond a Diana Ross cameo), but the rather vague document has kicked off its own legal battle.

In Los Angeles Superior Court, lawyer John Branca and music executive John McClain filed a motion to vacate Judge Mitchell Beckloff's Monday decision to appoint Jackson's mother, Katherine, as "special administrator" over the estate. Katherine Jackson made the request on Monday, but Branca and McClain now argue that the will supercedes the mother's claimed control.

In response, Judge Beckloff has urged the parties to get together and resolve the situation. "I would like the family to sit down and try to make this work so that we don't have a difficult time in court," he said.

In a statement, Branca and McClain said, "The most important element of Michael's will is his unwavering desire that his mother, Katherine, become the legal guardian for his three children. As we work to carry out Michael's instructions to safeguard both the future of his children as well as the remarkable legacy he left us as an artist we ask that all matters involving his estate be handled with the dignity and the respect that Michael and his family deserve."

Time will tell whether this situation evolves beyond a dispute of dignity to something more ugly. The estates of well-known entertainers with lots of intellectual property at stake tend to invite massive, ugly litigation, as we saw after James Brown passed away.

This time, there's a lot at stake. For instance, Lewis Stark, head of the royalty and contract compliance group at the NYC accounting firm Eisner LLP, claims he spoke to Michael Jackson himself a month ago, and based on his conversation, he believes there will be significant revenue to come, including the release of more than 200 songs from the King of Pop.

Why bar owners should think twice about blasting Poison

By Eriq Gardner

We've got a tip for bars and restaurant owners throughout the United States.

If a strange-looking person walks into your food or drink establishment with a tape measure and begins to ask questions about the number of stereo loudspeakers in the house, immediately comp this individual a stiff alcoholic drink. After all, this person may work for ASCAP or BMI, the two performance rights organizations chartered to collect royalties on behalf of music publishers.

Every bar and restaurant around knows they need a liquor license to serve alcohol, but how many actually spend the $1000 or so to purchase a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI to play music?

We guess not as many as should.

And so, every so often, ASCAP/BMI like to make a point by suing an establishment that hasn't paid for the rights to blare music to its patrons. Don't believe us? Check out this lawsuit filed earlier in the week by various song publishers against a small establishment in the Lower East Side of Manhattan called Pianos Bar and Restaurant. According to the complaint, Pianos had the nerve to play Poison's "Talk Dirty to Me" without paying Bret Michaels, or whomever holds the performance rights to the song. (Other songs are alleged too.)

Here's the thing, though. In 1998, Congress amended copyright law on performance rights as they applied to certain food service or drinking establishments. Exemptions were given to bars and restaurants that were less than 3,750 gross square feet or played music on no more than 6 loudspeakers. ASCAP's website acknowledges as much.

Performance rights are a pretty quirky realm of copyright law—and there's a lot of confusion about whether things like ringtones are covered—but in a day and age when the music industry is hunting for revenue, restaurants and bars are going to see more PRO cops in their midst.

J.D. Salinger stops 'Catcher' sequel

By Eriq Gardner

J.D. Salinger has successfully persuaded a New York federal judge to ban publication of a Swedish author's sequel to "The Catcher in the Rye." 

In her decision yesterday, Judge Deborah Batts ruled that author J.D. California's "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" didn't fall under fair use:

To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody.

Ouch. Here's the decision in full.

Aaron Silverman of SCB Distributors says "We strongly disagree with the decision and plan to appeal."

In the meantime, the case has generated a great deal of publicity for this book, and anybody who really wants to see a copy only has to go to eBay and Amazon UK to get ahold of it. We're still scratching our heads why Salinger has gone to the trouble to fight this inconsequential book, but if he really wants to keep "60 Years Later" from sullying his literary masterpiece, the reclusive, litigious author is going to need to knock on the door of the U.S. Customs Office to crack down on imported sales of the copyright infringing work.

How bad is the deal landscape? Entertainment lawyers sound off

By Eriq Gardner

Entertainment lawyer Gordon Firemark pointed on his blog yesterday a chilling memo from James Jones of Premiere Talent that has been circulating through Hollywood. 

This won't come as a shocker to anyone in the business, but the memo paints a dire portrait of an industry in turmoil as studios and networks cut back budgets. Firemark comments, "Sadly, this situation 'trickles down' to all entertainment industry workers, including writers, directors, crew, and even professionals like accountants, lawyers and the like."

Yes, theatrical boxoffice receipts are close to 12 percent ahead of last year's numbers, according to Box Office Mojo.But this doesn't tell the whole story.

In our conversations with industry lawyers, the number one topic of conversation is increasingly the woeful state of the industry. 

Hollywood's biggest stars are being forced into deals that would have seemed outlandish a few years earlier. Here are some choice quotes from some of the top talent lawyers we've interviewed for our upcoming Power Lawyers issue:

• "The financial structure of the TV and film industry is changing, and the pressures go well beyond just fee structures in contracts. We're also talking about conditions of employment, including trailers, travel, and photos. Just about everything is being cut back, especially the perks. Different clients react very differently to this news. It's becoming very hard for dealmakers."
• "Wow, I feel lucky just to have survived the last year. This is as challenging an economic environment as I've ever seen. I have to say I find what's been going on to be rather inexplicable."
• "Studios are getting more conservative on everything. The whole business is getting crunched. I think that everybody is challenged to be more creative in dealmaking because quotes really don't mean much these days."
• "I'm hoping with resolution with all of the guild issues, there will be some more stability in the marketplace and we'll see more stuff in production. Life will be pretty difficult otherwise."
• "What I'm seeing is more separation between the A++ clients and everyone else. Even for star clients who work in the feature market, there's just less work. Plus, a lot of movies being made today are animated and the compensation for that is nothing like what they would get on a live action picture."
• "As studios cut back on their production budget, it encourages talent to think of alternative ways to get into the distribution game and monetize their work. In some ways, studios are fostering competition for themselves and absolutely shooting themselves in the foot." 

Echostar manages rare win over TiVo

By Paul Bond

The patent battle between TiVo and EchoStar shows no signs of letup.

On Wednesday, EchoStar said a district court's injunction demanding it disable millions of DVRs used by its Dish customers has been blocked.

TiVo and EchoStar have been duking it out for almost six years, with TiVo awarded about $207 million so far due to patent infringements, but the big prize for TiVo remains elusive -- that being the forcing of EchoStar into a licensing arrangement with TiVo in order to prevent having to shut down Dish DVRs.

EchoStar is appealing the latest $103 million judgment against it and a June 2 order to disable DVRs within 30 days. It already had received a temporary stay of that order, but Wednesday the stay was extended to the duration of the appeal, which could take another two years.

"The federal circuit found that EchoStar met its burden of demonstrating the requisites for a stay, including, at a minimum, that we have a substantial case on the merits," EchoStar and Dish said statement Wednesday. "As a result of the stay, our customers can continue using their Dish DVRs."

Read Michael Jackson's will

By Eriq Gardner

At long last, here's a copy of Michael Jackson's will.

The will is dated July 7, 2002 and gives his entire estate to the Michael Jackson Family Trust. Contrary to earlier news reports, the will doesn't explicitly cut his father out of the estate — only his former wife Deborah Rowe.

The five-page document is rather vague on many details, which may spark future battles and increase the power of the named executors —  attorney John Branca, music exec John McClain and accountant Barry Siegel (although reports say Siegel resigned as an executor). The executors have been given power to sell assets of the estate and invest money from the estate, perhaps significant given the value of the singer's intellectual property.

Finally, Jackson gave his mother guardianship of his three children. Interestingly, his back-up plan for his children in case his mother didn't survive him was singer Diana Ross.

John Branca finally talks about Michael Jackson: 'It'll all be clear within 48 hours'

By Eriq Gardner

Yesterday, TMZ reported that music attorney John Branca of the Ziffren Brittenham firm was re-hired by Michael Jackson three weeks ago and that he has a copy of the late singer's will. But court papers filed yesterday by Michael Jackson's mother say the family hasn't been able to locate any will.

So who's right? We spoke to Branca today, and from his first interview on the subject we can confirm that Branca has been appointed as co-executor of the Jackson estate and that an announcement about the will is forthcoming.

Branca called us today in connection with our annual Power Lawyers issue (spoiler alert: Branca's on the list), and we got to talking about his involvement in the Michael Jackson situation. Branca says he was re-hired by Michael himself two weeks ago in preparation for the singer's planned comeback tour. The two go way back, having worked together during Michael's heyday in the 80's and 90's. Branca is often credited with negotiating for Jackson one of the most lucrative recording contracts in history and advising him to purchase the Beatles music publishing catalog. Jackson was even the best man at Branca's first wedding, but they parted ways a few years ago.

So what did he and Michael talk about? "We discussed how to exploit his valuable brand and the upcoming concert," says Branca.

Branca was as shocked as anyone to hear the news last week that Michael had been rushed to the hospital. Now, as co-executor of the estate, Branca will be handling the music publishing agreements that will earn the estate significant revenues over the coming years. This is the lawyer's specialty. Last year, for example, Branca represented the Rodgers & Hammerstein Org in a $250 million sale of the rights to hit broadway musicals.

When asked about the will, Branca let this tidbit fly:

"The will hasn't been filed yet," he said.

Would Branca confirm the existence of the much talked-about Michael Jackson will? THR's Roger Friedman has been reporting for days that Jackson drafted a will in 2002, dividing his estate among his mother, three children, and charities (but not his father), and that the will should be filed in Los Angeles Superior Court as soon as Thursday.

"It'll all be clear within 48 hours," he responded. "Much more will be revealed soon." 

Read Michael Jackson's mother's court petition

By Matthew Belloni

Michael Jackson's mother Katherine filed court documents today in an attempt to safegaurd her late son's assets, including Jackson's stake in the lucrative Sony-ATV music publishing catalog (which includes Beatles songs).

Here's the petition, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by attorney Burt Levitch at Rosenfeld Meyer & Susman.

Katherine Jackson, who has already won temporary custody of Michael's three children, is asking that a special administrator be immediately appointed to oversee the late singer's trust because certain bank accounts are controlled by unspecified third parties who might mishandle funds.

The court papers also ask that the administrator be given control over "certain tangible physical property currently in the physical possession of a third party," and that at least one person is improperly claiming to have a power of attorney to act on Jackson's behalf (power of attorney ends at death).

The court papers also say the family hasn't been able to locate a will. That contradicts a TMZ report claiming that former Jackson attorney John Branca of the Ziffren Brittenham firm (who was apparently re-hired by Jackson only weeks ago, according to the website) is in possession of a will. But if so, the family hasn't seen it.

Katherine Jackson says because Michael died without a wife or adult children, the family is now empowered to take control of the estate.

Graphing Michael Jackson's lawyers

By Eriq Gardner

Bitter Lawyer has a neat post up that summarizes Michael Jackson's greatest legal hits by pointing out the army of attorneys who have kept the King of Pop out of trouble—and in some cases, out of prison.

The post has some interesting tidbits, like Jackson performing Best Man duties at John Branca's first wedding and Bob Sanger talking to Jackson about psychology, Freud and Jung, Hawthorne, sociology, black history and sociology dealing with race issues.

We took the pleasure of using Bitter Lawyer's list to create a visualization of the many degrees of Michael Jackson's legal connections:

Breaking: Supreme Court Turns Down Cablevision Case

By Eriq Gardner

This just in: The Supreme Court has denied a writ of certiorari in Cable News Network, Inc., et al., v. CSC Holdings, Inc.

This means that the landmark ruling last year by the 2nd Circuit that legitimized Cablevision's plan to allow subscribers to store TV programs on the cable operator's computer servers instead of on a hard-top box has been allowed to stand.

This is a big blow to the entertainment industry. 

Content holders and broadcast networks pushed hard on the case, arguing on appeal that this was the most important copyright case since the Supreme Court defined the boundaries of fair use in 1984 in the Sony Betamax case. The Supreme Court's decision today to deny cert may make it easier for time-shifting technologies to appear in the marketplace and may also threaten burgeoning video-on-demand licensing revenue throughout Hollywood.

UPDATE: No satisfying conclusion just yet in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, the case concerning whether a documentary about Hillary Clinton should have been regulated by campaign finance laws. The Supreme Court announced that the case will be reargued and decided next term. 

According to Tom Goldstein at the SCOTUSblog, it's very rare that the Court doesn't resolve all of its cases before the end of a term. 

In its announcement today, the Court directed the parties to address the validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, indicating that it plans to take a broader look at campaign finance laws in relation to free speech.

Can Concert Promoter Recoup Michael Jackson Investment?

By Eriq Gardner

What's next for AEG Live, the concert promotion company that is facing the prospect of refunding more than $85 million on 750,000 ticket sales for Michael Jackson's planned comeback tour that will never happen?

Mary Craig Calkins, an insurance lawyer at Howrey LLP, tells us that AEG's insurance carrier will eagerly await the results of the late singer's toxicology report from the autopsy. Most "key man" insurance policies cover accidental death, so the insurers will want to know if there were any drugs or foul play involved that would indicate something else.

California has statutes that prevent insurers from covering intentional, willful acts. In addition, if there were drugs involved, the insurance company will closely scrutinize what was previously disclosed on the insurance forms about Jackson's condition.

Most insurers eventually pay out, says Calkins, but she says "It's not unusual to have negotiations (between the broker and the insurance company) over even less a megastar than Michael Jackson."

The lawyer points to insurance difficulties in the aftermath of deaths to actors including Heath Ledger, Brandon Lee, John Candy, and John Ritter. 

Someone is going to be on the hook for a huge loss. But maybe not quite as much as news reports suggest. Calkins believes that not all purchasers of Jackson concert tickets will request an actual refund, preferring to hold onto their tickets as memorabilia items.

That gives us an idea. 

Considering the huge amount of interest in Michael Jackson, and the extensive preparations already made for the Jackson concert series, maybe AEG should consider staging a series of "tribute" concerts this summer, featuring many Jackson musical acolytes, with profits going to starving children in Africa. We Are The World, part two?

Q&A: 'Shouting Fire' director Liz Garbus

By Eriq Gardner

On Monday, HBO will premiere "Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech," a documentary that takes a critical look at attacks on free expression post-9/11. The film is directed by Liz Garbus, daughter of well-known First Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus, who also appears in the film. We spoke to Liz about the genesis of this project, the uniquely personal way she explores these complex legal issues, and why she's looking forward to debating Bill O'Reilly.

THR, Esq.: So how did "Shouting Fire" get started?
Garbus: Credit goes to Shiela Nevins at HBO. When things are so close to you, you don't realize it's something you should do. At the time, my father was representing (Don) Imus, and his case brought up a lot of questions about the boundaries on the things we say. Sheila asked whether I'd be interested in taking a look at the state of free speech post-9/11, which I thought was a great idea.

THR, Esq: What's the big take-away for anybody who watches "Shouting Fire"
Garbus: In this country, free speech is taken for granted. Take a look at Iran today and see how important free speech is, and you learn that this is something you have to fight to protect. 

THR, Esq: Free speech is a right and a freedom, but those who express themselves bear some responsibility for what they say, correct? 
Garbus: Of course, language that is an incitement to violence raises some interesting issues. Some questions are tough, like the Internet radio host involved in a fascinating case where he posted the names of three judges and said that blood deserved to be spilled. But for the most part, free speech is protected, and if there is something that's offensive you don't like, you need to fight it with more speech. I think of (fired Colorado professor) Ward Churchill's fight for his job. They fired him for academic misconduct, but it seems more likely it was a retaliation for some of the things he wrote.

THR, Esq: Will you be debating Bill O'Reilly on this one?
Garbus: There will be a decision on whether or not he gets his job back right after this documentary comes out. I expect that Bill O'Reilly will be paying attention.

THR, Esq: The documentary starts out in the first-person and your father is prominently featured. Is this a personal document as much as a thesis on the state of free speech?Garbus: It's personal because we can't ignore the relationship. It's the elephant in the room, but this isn't first-person filmmaking in the way that people narrate their own story. We tried to strike a balance. Different eras ask for different ways of responding to social issues. In the 70s, a lot of people became lawyers like my father. This was my tool of expression.

How will Michael Jackson's death impact his legal problems?

By Eriq Gardner

Michael Jackson is dead at the age of 50.

The superstar singer will be remembered for a lot of things, from hit records to a galvanizing stage presence to his enormous personal troubles. But lately the King of Pop had become the King of Litigation, having been sued by royalty, veterinary hospitals, lawyers, "she's not my lover" Billie Jean, Wall Street, the family of somebody who died, Sotheby's auction house, the director of "Thriller," the actress who appeared in "Thriller," African singers, concert promoters, public relations help, and on and on and on...

So while Jackson has passed away, many of these cases are still living. What will happen to these lawsuits now?

We checked in with some litigators, including a few who had represented Jackson or handled lawsuits against him. (In this town, Jackson's legal contacts run deep.)

As with everyone who dies during litigation, Jackson's legal troubles may still survive the singer's passing. 

Plaintiffs still have the right to pursue their claims, and whether they choose to pursue them will largely depend on what's in dispute.

The least likely to remain active are the lawsuits that will be tough to prove without any direct witness examination of Jackson himself. This runs the gamut from personal injury complaints at Jackson's old "Neverland" estate to copyright infringement allegations to the lawsuit filed just two days ago concerning the planned Michael Jackson reunion tour.

That said, we'll probably continue to read about the cases involving collections on Jackson's massive debts. His estate will become the nominal defendant in such actions, which will largely depend on auditing of financial books and old contracts rather than any eyewitness testimony. (Assuming, of course, that these lawsuits don't claim any oral promises.)

Interestingly, Jackson's reunion tour held the prospect of garnering hundreds of millions of dollars that may have gone a long way to repaying Jackson's debt. Now, of course, the stakeholders in that tour could initiate additional lawsuits trying to recoup their investments. 

Suspense builds for two key Supreme Court decisions

By Eriq Gardner

Alfred Hitchock once lived by the dictum that if you introduce a gun in the first act of a movie, it shouldn't be used until the third.

The Supreme Court knows a thing or two about suspense, waiting until the very last second to make two decisions that hold ramifications for the entertainment community.

This morning the Court was expected to released the rest of its opinions from its current term. Well, not so fast. Everyone gets the weekend to wait in anticipation of two important decisions. How the nine justices rule could change the way TV is watched and the manner in which documentaries on political candidates are seen by the public.

We've been following the first case case (Cable News Network, Inc., et al., v. CSC Holdings, Inc) since the 2nd Circuit issued a landmark ruling that legitimized Cablevision's plan to allow subscribers to store TV programs on the cable operator's remote servers. The case poses copyright questions like what constitutes a "copy" and whether infringing acts must be willful, and in January, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General for the government's opinion of whether they should take the case. 

Judge Elena Kagan answered "Not so fast," and now it's up to the Supreme Court to grant review of the case or let the 2nd Circuit decision stand.

The second case (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) tests whether political documentaries that prominently feature candidates for office should be regulated by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. In the case, producers of a scathing 90-minute documentary about Hillary Clinton sued the FEC, arguing their film wasn't a political advertisement meant to push voters against Clinton and shouldn't be regulated as such. The Supreme Court held hearings on this case in March, but evidently the justices need every last second to refine their judgement.

Today the Court announced a long list of cases they were granting or denying cert without mentioning the Cablevision case. Talk about leaving the entertainment community on the edge of their seats.

Perez Hilton sues Black Eyed Peas manager for battery

By Matthew Belloni

Perez Hilton's lawyer wasn't kidding about those threats. The blogger has just sued Black Eyed Peas road manager Polo Molina for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress over an alleged incident at Sunday's MuchMusic Video Awards that left Hilton roughed up and distressed enough to post an expletive-laden video on his website.

Here's the Hilton complaint , and a statement from lawyer Bryan Freedman:

"Perez Hilton was assaulted by the Band’s road manager because he would not agree to stop writing about the Black Eyed Peas on his website Perezhiton.com. Perez Hilton files this lawsuit to protect his freedom of speech and seeks legal redress against those who have physically assaulted him because they do not like his review of their album. Whether you love Perez or hate him, he is entitled to his freedom of speech without fear of physical violence. This lawsuit will make the statement that violence is never the answer. His First Amendment rights will be vigorously protected.”

Piracy verdict still reverberating

By Eriq Gardner

Last week's verdict in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case continues to generate reaction.

The guilty defendant and her lawyer appeared on CBS' "The Early Show" to tell her story and arouse some sympathy.

Meanwhile, the RIAA is slowly becoming less shy about touting the verdict. On its "Music Notes" blog, vp Joshua Friedlander offers an interesting interpretation of the verdict, saying we can learn the views of a majority of Americans from this 12-person, industry-outsider jury. He writes: "Despite the protestations of some pundits who suggest that the digital world should resemble some kind of new wild west, the majority understands and believes that the same laws and rules we follow every day apply online."

The case has received so much attention that it might actually be overshadowing a court decision in Germany that's arguably more consequential.

Thomas-Rasset was accused of sharing copyrighted songs on the Kazaa network. But these days, most pirates have largely eschewed massive peer-to-peer file-sharing services like Kazaa in favor of private torrent networks or nimble hosting services like Rapidshare and Megaupload connecting users to desired copyrighted material on a much more ad hoc basis. 

In all the talk about the Thomas-Rasset verdict, and what the jury's expression actually meant, few have devoted attention to the fact that Jammie was caught using a P2P client that's seen as being largely obsolete in many quarters.

Which brings us to yesterday's decision in Germany, where a regional court in Hamburg ruled that Rapidshare is "now responsible for making sure that none of the music tracks concerned are distributed via its platform in the future. This means that the copyright holder is no longer required to perform the ongoing and complex checks."

In recent years, Rapidshare has emerged as a giant in the file hosting world, and while there will no doubt be services that take its place, at least this verdict targets a technology that's in vogue in the piracy community. In the meantime, Rapidshare COO Bobby Chang downplays the ruling as not being a "breakthrough" because he thinks "the courts of appeal tend to restrict the scope of the decisions made by the lower courts."

We'll see.

Joe Francis finds new lawyers, targets 'Girls Gone Mobile'

By Eriq Gardner

Joe Francis obviously loves wild girls. Perhaps as much as he adores lawsuits.

We love bizarre legal filings too, so we were saddened by the news last January that the softcore porn mogul and his lawyer had separated from each other. 

That divorce offered its own entertainment—who fired whom—but without a lawyer, Francis couldn't file lawsuits like the one alleging a conspiracy between a U.S. district judge, the parents of underage women, and the judge's former law partners in a plot to entrap him in a $70 million legal heist in Panama City. 

Where to go for our legal kicks if not for ol' Joe?

No fear. Evidently, Francis has hired a new legal team at Keats McFarland & Wilson, and it hasn't taken long for Francis to put his new lawyers to work.

Francis' Mantra Films has filed a lawsuit against several mobile content businesses and wireless providers, including giants AT&T and Verizon, for allegedly distributing content under a "Girls Gone Mobile" banner that allegedly violates Mantra's trademark on "Girls Gone Wild." 

The complaint is sketchy on the details of the business arrangements, but we'll give it some points for including the NC-17-rated trademark applications as evidentiary exhibits.

Perez Hilton lawyer threatens Will.I.Am

By Matthew Belloni

Blogger Perez Hilton and Black Eyed Peas frontman Will.I.Am are already embroiled in a war of words over a fracas following Canada's MuchMusic Video Awards last night. Now the lawyers are getting involved.

Bryan Freedman, whose aggressive representation of Hilton (aka Mario Lavandeira) has resulted in a few recent court victories against paparazzi agencies and others, is threatening Will.I.Am with legal action if he is found to have assaulted the blogger or encouraged manager Polo Molino to do so.  

"Perez will take legal action against anyone who chooses to resort to physical violence as a means to respond to criticism they do not like," Freedman writes us in an email.  "It is my understanding that criminal assault charges have been filed against the band’s manager, Polo Molino, and we are conducting a legal investigation as to whether Will.I.Am encouraged and/or instructed Molino to engage in this physical assault."

Hilton took to Twitter and an expletive-laden video posted on his website today to lash out at Will.I.Am and posse for allegedly tracking down the blogger at an MMVA afterparty. Hilton was allegedly punched in the eye. Will.I.Am claimed in his own video that it was a fan that struck Hilton. But Freedman sounds skeptical. 

"Rest assured that anyone who physically assaults Perez Hilton or encourages others to do so because they cannot handle a little criticism will be sued as quickly as I can type," he writes. "His first amendment rights will not be infringed upon through fear, intimidation or violence."

Manager brings defamation lawsuit over Tom Waits biography

By Eriq Gardner

It's never a surprise when an artist feels he's been screwed by dirty accounting from managers and studios. 

But apparently preserving one's reputation as an honest manager still counts.

Herbert Cohen, who has managed the careers of such legends as Frank Zappa, Alice Cooper and Linda Ronstandt, is suing Random House and the author of "Low Side of the Road: A Life of Tom Waits," after the book quoted several individuals who claim Cohen stole money from Waits. The book also goes into a bit of detail about litigation involving Cohen and Waits, and accuses the manager of stealing royalties. 

In one passage, Waits allegedly tells author Barney Hoskyns, "I thought I was a millionaire and it turned out I had, like, twenty bucks. And what followed was a lot of court battles, and it was a difficult ride."

Cohen says these statements are libelous and wants $1 million after the book "was published with malice and oppression, in that it was intended to harm plaintiff's reputation, and with reckless disregard for the truth, in light of the fact that Hoskyns interviewed many others in preparing the Book, and the true facts could have been ascertained by consulting plaintiff, other interviewees, and public records."

The complaint was filed in California district court. Considering that the author is British, we wonder why the lawsuit wasn't filed in the much more defamation-friendly UK court. Or why Cohen isn't also going after Waits, who was quoted.