Music labels' AI lawsuits create copyright puzzle for courts; Reuters, August 4, 2024

Blake Brittain, Reuters; Music labels' AI lawsuits create copyright puzzle for courts

"Suno and Udio pointed to past public statements defending their technology when asked for comment for this story. They filed their initial responses in court on Thursday, denying any copyright violations and arguing that the lawsuits were attempts to stifle smaller competitors. They compared the labels' protests to past industry concerns about synthesizers, drum machines and other innovations replacing human musicians...

The labels' claims echo allegations by novelists, news outlets, music publishers and others in high-profile copyright lawsuits over chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude that use generative AI to create text. Those lawsuits are still pending and in their early stages.

Both sets of cases pose novel questions for the courts, including whether the law should make exceptions for AI's use of copyrighted material to create something new...

"Music copyright has always been a messy universe," said Julie Albert, an intellectual property partner at law firm Baker Botts in New York who is tracking the new cases. And even without that complication, Albert said fast-evolving AI technology is creating new uncertainty at every level of copyright law.

WHOSE FAIR USE?

The intricacies of music may matter less in the end if, as many expect, the AI cases boil down to a "fair use" defense against infringement claims - another area of U.S. copyright law filled with open questions."

Swift’s Latest Hit: Copyright Law; Boston College Law School Magazine Online, April 5, 2024

Sean Doolittle ’24, Boston College Law School Magazine Online; Swift’s Latest Hit: Copyright Law

"Greenstein described the impact that Swift’s gambit has had on the music industry: “Labels invest in artists, they hire producers, they pay for recording time, and they want to recover that investment. Recording agreements often prohibited musical artists from going out and re-recording a song for a period of five to seven years from the original release date of the record, or two years from the expiration of the contract. Now, thanks to Taylor Swift, they’re pushing that up to ten, fifteen, maybe even thirty years,” he warned. Once bitten, twice shy, as they say.

Swift has, in other words, slammed the door in the face of new artists hoping to come up through the recording industry, making it that much harder for future musicians to negotiate for ownership of their music. Now, up-and-coming musicians will be largely stripped of the ability to re-record their music and acquire the phonogram copyrights in a song for decades—well past their prime popularity, in all likelihood—instead of the traditional five- to seven-year period. Popular established musicians, on the other hand, stand to benefit, reinforcing the exclusive nature of the music industry."

Why musicians are so angry at the world’s most popular music streaming service; Washington Post, July 14, 2017

Todd C. Frankel, Washington Post; Why musicians are so angry at the world’s most popular music streaming service

"With the money from CDs and digital downloads disappearing, the music industry has pinned its hope for the future on online song streaming, which now accounts for the majority of the $7.7 billion U.S. music market.

But the biggest player in this future isn’t one of the names most associated with streaming — Spotify, Amazon, Pandora or Apple. It’s YouTube, the site best known for viral videos, which accounts for 25 percent of all music streamed worldwide, far more than any other site.

Now, YouTube is locked in an increasingly bitter battle with music labels over how much it pays to stream their songs — and at stake is not just the finances of the music industry but also the way that millions of people around the world have grown accustomed to listening to music: free of cost."

File sharers targeted with legal action over music downloads; (London) Guardian, 7/17/10

Miles Brignall, (London) Guardian; File sharers targeted with legal action over music downloads: Lawyers for Ministry of Sound and other music labels are seeking compensation, threatening court action unless file sharers pay:

"Solicitors for dance music label Ministry of Sound have sent letters to thousands of internet users it believes have illegally downloaded music and says it is determined to take them to court – and extract substantial damages – unless they immediately pay compensation, typically around £350.

Ministry of Sound's move marks an intensification of the legal battle against file sharers, which is seeing more and more lawyers send out what critics call speculative invoicing of downloaders suspected of pirating anything from music tracks to films and games.

Soho firm Gallant Macmillan last week completed a mailout to 2,000 individuals it claims infringed Ministry of Sound's copyright after downloading and sharing music. It follows in the steps of ACS:Law, which has sent many thousands of letters demanding compensation from alleged file sharers, sometimes billing in excess of £1,000. Luke Bellamy, above, contacted Money this week after receiving a £295 demand from ACS:Law, which alleged he downloaded and shared a track from dance music group Cascada.

Some recipients of the letters, concerned about forking out huge damages, have paid up. Others have been mystified – they claim never to have downloaded the tracks. Meanwhile, some legal specialists say the threats are largely unenforceable. Unless a user confesses to illegally downloading a file, or a court order is obtained to seize a computer and the file is then located on its hard drive, consumer groups say, it's hard to see how such an action will succeed.

Even the body that represents the UK recorded music industry, the BPI, which is keen to stamp out illegal filesharing, says it does not condone the mass-mailing of alleged internet pirates. "Our view is that legal action is best reserved for the most persistent or serious offenders, rather than widely used as a first response," it says.

Most recipients of the letters have binned them and, to date, avoided any further action. But Gallant Macmillan says it is taking a different approach to the other legal firms that pioneered this business, and that its sole client, Ministry of Sound, is serious when it threatens legal action. Until now, none of these cases have ended up in UK courts. A Ministry of Sound spokesman says that actions have been won in German courts, and it is confident that it can do the same in the UK.

Bellamy, 23, a lifeguard from Dudley, West Midlands, lives with his parents, but pays for the O2 broadband connection into the family home. The letter sent to him by ACS:Law claims his internet account was used to download Evacuate the Dancefloor by Cascada, from the filesharing website uTorrent.

The letter, which runs to nine pages, goes on to claim that this was in breach of ACS's clients' copyright, and offers to settle its potential claim if Bellamy pays nearly £300 in compensation.
"Getting a letter like this is extremely worrying. I have never downloaded anything from this website and yet I am being chased for this money. My parents have been worried by this, and frankly I've got better things to do with my time than deal with this."

And he is by no means alone. The internet is awash with similar complaints from anxious web users - many of whom who did download the files where they have been accused of infringing copyright, but also from plenty who insist they didn't. The letters demand anywhere between £300 and £1,200. The law firms sending the letters obtain the names and addresses of the downloaders from internet service providers (ISPs). To get access, they usually seek a high court order, and ISPs have no choice but to hand over the details.

In November 2008, Money first reported that solicitors were sending out threatening letters to net users. We featured a Hertfordshire couple sent a demand to pay £503 for "copyright infringement" or face a high court action. The 20-page "pre-settlement letter" from legal firm Davenport Lyons demanded money on behalf of German pornographers, who claimed the pair had illegally downloaded a porn film. The couple said they had no idea how to even download a film, even if they had the inclination, which they didn't.

Michael Coyle, solicitor advocate and MD of the Southampton-based law firm Lawdit, who has represented hundreds of people who have received these letters, says none of his cases have gone to court."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/17/file-sharers-legal-action-music-downloads

Swedes start buying music; are anti-P2P laws working?; Ars Technica, 11/24/09

Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Swedes start buying music; are anti-P2P laws working?:

Digital music sales in piracy-loving Sweden have soared this year. The music industry says that it's all about tough new laws and court prosecutions, but some major labels are seeing worldwide increases.

"Is Sweden, the only country to have sent a member of the Pirate Party to the European Parliament, finally giving up its swashbuckling ways?

When Sweden's IPRED anti-piracy law went into effect earlier this year, Internet traffic across the country plummeted overnight—a sign that P2P users, fearing exposure at last, were abandoning their existing copyright infringement tools. The Pirate Bay defendants were found guilty by a Swedish court earlier this year, and the site's ISP are now under assault by the music and movie industries.

The music business insists that the measure are working. Music's major labels say that sales of digital downloads are up 18 percent in the first nine months of 2009 in Sweden.

Ludvig Werner, head of the trade group IFPI Sweden, told the UK's Guardian newspaper that it didn't matter if people still wanted to pirate; the point was, they were doing less of it. "It's like speeding, put up cameras and people will start to ease off the gas pedal. Even if it doesn't change the attitudes, they find legal alternatives because they don't want to get caught," said Werner.

Dueling explanations
As with most statistics in the Copyright Wars, these are hard to evaluate. Digital music sales are up, but has copyright infringement also dropped?"

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/swedes-start-buying-music-are-anti-p2p-laws-working.ars

10 sites to help you navigate the new world of music; CNN.com, 7/23/09

John D. Sutter via CNN.com; 10 sites to help you navigate the new world of music:

"Online music is confusing these days.

Web sites are giving people new ways to find and enjoy music.

It's hard to tell what's legal when once-defunct sites like KaZaA and Napster --former bastions of illegal downloads -- crawl out of the grave with legit subscription plans.

And digital music offerings are expanding.

Instead of buying CDs or downloading songs, younger consumers appear to be shifting toward streaming music online and on mobile devices.

That's partly because music streaming services like Pandora are largely free, and also because younger people aren't as tied to the idea that music must be owned to be enjoyed, said Russ Crupnick, a senior industry analyst at NPD Entertainment, which conducts market research.

In a survey released earlier this year, NPD Group found the number of teens streaming music online jumped from 34 percent in 2007 to 52 percent in 2008. CD sales and music downloads dropped over the same period.

It's unclear which online music models will survive, said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, the nonprofit that collects royalties for recording companies and artists.
But some music industry experts say the shifting landscape of digital music could help save struggling musicians and record companies.

Rich Bengloff, president of the American Association of Independent Music, said power is in the hands of consumers.

"To survive, music labels must get revenue from multiple sources, with the consumers deciding which of these sources they want to use to access music," he said in an e-mail. "These sources need to include streaming services like Pandora, SomaFM, Yahoo, etc. and subscription services like Napster and Rhapsody.

"These services are good for the industry as long as artists who create the music and the music labels that invest in that music creation receive fair compensation."

To help you sort through the many options, CNN.com compiled a list of 10 sites that are rethinking how people access music on the Internet."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/23/online.music.kazaa/index.html

Music Labels Cut Friendlier Deals With Start-Ups; New York Times, 5/27/09

Brad Stone via New York Times; Music Labels Cut Friendlier Deals With Start-Ups:

"“Entrepreneurs are also realizing they need to spend as much energy on their business model as they do on technological innovation.”

The changes stem from an unavoidable and unpleasant reality facing the music business: the economics of offering music free on the Web do not work...

As a result, the online music landscape is littered with the wreckage of failed or troubled music start-ups...

“There was a generation of Web companies that signed up for deals that didn’t make sense, and unfortunately they set a precedent,” Mr. Westergren said. “Now that those deals turned out to be unsustainable, it made the labels realize that there was actually not hidden money they were missing out on. I think labels have a much better understanding of the economics of the business."...

Spotify plans to launch in the United States later this year, and its founder, Daniel Ek, claims that the music labels have given the start-up flexibility because they are attracted to a service that converts illegal downloaders into monetizable consumers of music. “This is what has been lacking for 10 years. The only way to beat piracy is by actually creating a legal service that is just as good,” Mr. Ek said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/technology/start-ups/28music.html?_r=1&hpw

Want to Copy iTunes Music? Go Ahead, Apple Says, New York Times, 1/7/09

Via New York Times: Want to Copy iTunes Music? Go Ahead, Apple Says:

"The music companies are hoping that their eagerly awaited compromise with Apple will give a lift to digital downloads. They will be able to make more money on their best-selling songs and increase the appeal of older ones.

And with the copying restrictions removed, people will be able to freely shift the songs they buy on iTunes among computers, phones and other digital devices.

Technologically sophisticated fans of digital music complain that D.R.M. imposes unfair restrictions on what they can do with the tracks they have bought. For example, the protected files from iTunes do not work on portable players made by companies other than Apple.

“I think the writing was on the wall, both for Apple and the labels, that basically consumers were not going to put up with D.R.M. anymore,” said Tim Bajarin, an analyst with Creative Strategies, a market research company."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/technology/companies/07apple.html?scp=1&sq=copy%20itunes%20song%20go%20ahead&st=cse