The revised version would require copyright owners to pay legal costs and compensation for such requests, and also to inform site owners before requesting a block, with a list of infringing works. Sites would also be able to appeal against being blocked.

Equally controversially, Billboard says that the original amendment is “almost identical” to a draft written by the BPI – implying that it was cut’n'pasted into the amendment by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones.

The bill has faced strenuous lobbying from both sides of the debate – ISPs and the music industry. The question now is whether it will have time to become legislation before the UK’s upcoming General Election, and what kind of shape it will be in by that point after the barrage of recent amendments.

“This growth reflects in particular our increased efforts to license those benefiting from the use of British music overseas, our continued pursuit of legitimate alternatives to online piracy and, as always, the creative talent of our authors, composers and publishers,” says CEO Robert Ashcroft

“2009 was the first year in which the growth in revenues from the legal digital market compensated for the decline in revenues from traditional CDs and DVDs, though we remain cautious as to whether this represents a true turning point. The next decade does however promise further growth in earnings from the legal digital market as well as the use of British music overseas.”

“What should actually happen is people should come up with smaller companies and go more directly towards the customers, and do crowd-funding or try alternative methods instead of the old ideas of how to fund things.” Which is interesting, given the current industry debate around investment in music, and alternative sources to the traditional label deal.

Sunde also laughed off last year’s attempted purchase of The Pirate Bay by Swedish firm Global Gaming Factory X. “It kind of died when it turned out the Global Gaming Factory people were more weird than the Pirate Bay people.”

The appeal will kick off on 28 September, and is due to finish on 15 October – although that could change if either the defendants or plaintiffs object. This may well happen, as one of the defendants, Peter Sunde, has already criticised the date because it’s just after the Swedish parliamentary elections.

Yes, he’s tweeted his response: “case set to be heard AFTER Swedish election. We’re only available before the election. Who said this case is NOT political? LOL!”

The joint letter to the Financial Times claims that “the amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it could bring”. The letter doesn’t pull its punches:

“Blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor lawmaking.”

This is the very real issue with the Digital Economy Bill. Despite a long and frankly tortuous consultation process, since the bill got to its latest House of Lords reading, it’s been the subject of a barrage of amendments from all angles – some of which have never been discussed as part of the consultation.

Standing outside the ongoing needling between rightsowners and ISPs / tech firms, it’s hard not to wonder whether this is any way to put together such an important piece of legislation, which is supposed to be tackling online piracy while also fostering innovative new business models for digital media.

And that’s without even mentioning the fact that the whole thing is having to be hurried through before the UK’s General Election – currently expected to take place in May.

High Court Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt agreed with Pink Floyd that a clause in their contract with EMI expressly prohibited the label from selling their albums in “any configuration other than the original configuration” – as their lawyers put it – which includes allowing people to buy individual tracks on iTunes and other stores.

The contract was signed in 1999, and EMI had argued that the clause only covered physical recordings. Now the label is faced with the prospect of removing the band’s back catalogue from digital stores, or at least negotiating new deals for the albums to be sold unbundled.

(They’re still available a la carte on iTunes for fans who want to get in quick).

What’s less clear is whether Pink Floyd also prevailed in another aspect of the case – their challenge of the royalties they’re due from online sales of their back catalogue. The arguments and judgement of this part of the case were held in private at EMI’s request.

The ruling follows yesterday’s news that EMI Music CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti is leaving the company on 31 March, to be replaced by former ITV boss Charles Allen, who’ll take the role of executive chairman. “EMI is a wonderful business with a great team and new creative and operational momentum,” said Leoni-Sceti. “My job here is now done and it is time for me to move on.” Clearly a man with an immaculate sense of timing.

The Pink Floyd decision may not directly affect that momentum – the band won because of that explicit clause forbidding the sale of their albums in new configurations. But elsewhere, there remain questions about EMI’s relations with artists.

OK Go is the latest band to leave the label, having recently clashed with EMI over its no-embeds policy on their YouTube videos. The band plans to re-release its latest album Of The Color of Blue Sky on its own label, having reportedly only sold 20,000 copies since EMI released it in January.

The aim is to make amends for the fact that the song was kept off the top spot in 1981 by novelty song ‘Shaddap You Face’ by Joe Dolce. Predictably, then, the original recording of the latter tune is being released for the first time digitally to go head-to-head (again) with Ultravox.

It comes out on 16th March, and YES, there is a Facebook page, as well as a dedicated ‘Battle For Britain’ website to promote Dolce’s cause. Although given that his song has sold more than six million physical copies over the years, the plucky underdog stance may wear a bit thin.

Either this will be the next big digitally-fuelled chart battle, or both tracks will debut in the low eighties before sinking without trace. Place your bets now…

Or to be specific: the piracy rate of people who were illegally downloading before the new law is 3% higher now. We’re a bit puzzled about the details as reported by TorrentFreak though – it says pirates have shifted their activity to ’streaming services’ as well as online storage services like Rapidshare.

Pirate streaming services? Maybe they mean unlicensed sites, because if pirates were switching to licensed streaming services, that would surely be a positive thing? Usage of traditional P2P services did drop by 17.1% between September and December last year though.

Power Amp will take a 50% share of the gross revenue from Church’s recordings, publishing, merchandising and live performances for a ’set period’.

Church says the deal “provides me with a financial commitment equivalent to that of a major record company but with a much greater degree of control and ownership over my career”.

Her last album was released through Sony BMG, and although it went platinum, Church has spent the last couple of years focusing on a combination of TV work and motherhood rather than music.

Our first reaction to the news, though, is that £2 million seems like a lot of money – especially as one of the big points in yesterday’s IFPI report was that it takes a $1 million investment to break a big pop album in the US and UK. With that in mind, what’s Charlotte going to blow £2 million on around a single album?

The band’s contract with EMI was last renegotiated in 1998-99, before digital sales took off, at a time when – in QC Robert Howe’s words – “It was unclear whether record companies would be selling direct to the consumer or through retailers”.

It’s the unbundling aspect that has irked the band most, seemingly. “It is a matter of fact that the defendant has been permitting individual tracks to be downloaded online and that therefore they have been allowing albums not to be sold in their original configuration,” said Howe, suggesting that this is against the terms of the band’s contract. A ruling is expected on Thursday.