At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest YouTube rippers took the unprecedented step of taking the music industry to court .

Yout.com’s Johnathan Nader had grown tired of the bombardment of DMCA takedown requests and allegedly defamatory claims. In response, he sued the RIAA, asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare his service non-infringing.

The RIAA and others were asking Google to remove so-called YouTube-rippers from search results. The music industry group believes that these sites should not be allowed to operate and filed a motion to dismiss Yout’s lawsuit.

RIAA Wins, Yout Appeals

At the end of 2022, the district court handed a win to the RIAA and dismissed the matter at an early stage. Judge Stefan Underhill concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. As such, it could be breaking the law. That wasn’t the end though.

Yout operator Johnathan Nader opted to appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to reverse the lower court’s decision. The stream-ripper’s arguments are partly supported by amicus briefs from GitHub and the EFF , both of which joined the case.

On the other side of the aisle, the RIAA dug in its heels. The music group saw no reason to doubt the lower court’s position and, in its response to the appeal, found the Copyright Alliance at its side .

Appeals Court Hearing

On the surface, this case largely revolves around a seemingly simple question. The problem, however, is that both parties have a completely different answer.

– Does YouTube employ a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works?

This question brings up all sorts of semantic challenges. What is a measure and when is it technological ? What does access mean in this context and under which conditions is it controlled ? And if there is such a measure, does Yout.com circumvent it?

A few days ago Yout and the RIAA had the chance to explain their reasoning to the Court of Appeals. The hearing was presided over by Judge Carney, Judge Leval, and Judge Sullivan, who critically questioned both attorneys on their views.

First up was Evan Fray Witzer, who represents Yout LLC. The attorney explained that this case brings up several novel questions, relating to three distinct provisions of the DMCA’s section 1201. At the same time, however, it is crucial to have a full factual record, which is currently missing.

The lower court dismissed Yout’s case at the rule 12 stage before all the factual evidence was gathered. No witnesses were heard and it’s not even clear if YouTube intentionally implemented a ‘measure’ to prevent users from downloading videos.

“There is a question as to what YouTube intended with these measures. We don’t know because YouTube isn’t here. YouTube has not come in as an amicus. And we have not had the opportunity to question YouTube about that,” Witzer said.

Yout’s attorney suggests that it’s possible that YouTube never implemented any technology specifically to prevent people from grabbing video files. It might have, but in that case, it is still easy to circumvent, even without specialized tools such as Yout.

Where’s YouTube?

Judge Leval responded by saying that preventing downloads is of great commercial significance to YouTube, as it generates its revenue from advertising. Yout’s attorney agreed but had his response ready.

“I have two responses to that. The first is; one would expect if that was YouTube’s concern, that you would have an amicus brief from YouTube here, and you don’t. And I think that that is significant and telling.

“The second, though, is that is the same concern, Your Honor, that every television broadcast had when the VCR came out. If you can simply record this, you can show it at your movie night. You can show it as many times as you want.”

The VCR comparison was brought up a few times but not as often as the role of YouTube in this lawsuit. The case essentially centers around its purported protection measures, without any direct input from the company itself.

When Judge Carney asked what in particular would be developed on a fuller record, if this case was sent back to the lower court, Yout’s attorney said that YouTube could and should be heard.

“I think one thing that would be developed on a fuller record, Your Honor, is what precisely is the technological measure employed by YouTube and does it, is it designed to prevent access? Is it designed to prevent copying? Or does it have some other use that YouTube is putting to it?”

The attorney said that they would need to subpoena YouTube as a third party. That should clarify what their technology and methods are and how this relates to YouTube’s business.

“I’ll simply conclude by saying this is the type of case that calls out for expert witnesses,” Witzer said, noting that the EFF and GitHub had already argued in their favor.

Court Questions RIAA

The hearing then continued with RIAA attorney Rose Ehler, who started by pointing out that Yout allows the public to download audio and video files. This includes copies of music videos that were only intended to be streamed through YouTube.

This introduction triggered a quick tête-à-tête with Judge Sullivan, who tried to get to the bottom of RIAA’s reasoning.

Judge: But I could do that without Yout, right?

RIAA: There are instructions for how one could do it without Yout. But what Yout does is enable it on an automated basis.

Judge: I get that. But […] seriously, what is the technological measure that would be protecting this copying of the material if I can do it myself?

RIAA: Well, just because you can do it yourself or you can hack the technological measure, it doesn’t mean…[interrupted]

Judge: Well, I’m not hacking anything. I mean, I could do this right now in this courtroom on my computer probably, right?

RIAA: Your Honor could. I think it would be hacking.

RIAA’s attorney went on to explain what it sees as the “technical measure.” Yout itself has stated that YouTube uses a “signature mechanism” that must be read and interpreted by JavaScript. Yout modifies the signature value.

This prompted more questions from Judge Sullivan, who suggested that the signature value is accessible through a regular browser and that he and others could also modify it without using a dedicated tool such as Yout.

“You’re saying I would then be violating the statute as well?” the Judge asked.

RIAA’s attorney agreed that people could do it on their own which, in individual cases, may qualify as a copyright exemption. However, doing it to download a music video and to seed piracy on the Internet would be classified as circumvention under the DMCA.

Reverse Engineered Technological Protection?

Moving on to the “protection” element, the RIAA believes that the signature value used by YouTube serves as a technological measure that, in the ordinary course, prevents people from downloading music videos.

“The strength is not what we look at. We look at how it operates in the ordinary course and whether in the ordinary course of the operation, it serves the function of limiting or controlling access,” RIAA’s attorney said.

This again triggered more questions from the court about how effective this is and whether the signature value was intended as a protection measure. The latter question can only be answered by YouTube, whose views are unknown.

The RIAA countered by noting that intent isn’t important, as it’s not part of the DMCA rules. The statute looks at whether a technological measure is being circumvented in the ordinary course of operation, which it believes is the case here.

This didn’t convince Judge Sullivan who pointed out that the lower court seems to have “reverse engineered” its way to a conclusion.

“But how are we able to know that from the pleadings? How are we able to know how it works in the ordinary course? I mean, it might be people are doing this all the time on their own. There’s no discovery on that. There’s no expert opinion on that.

“It seems to me that Judge Underhill sort of inferred that this, because it’s complicated, because there’s no download button, because it’s a contractual provision, there must be a technological measure. He’s sort of backwardly engineered it, it seems to me,” Judge Sullivan added.

An Easy Solution

As is, the court may not be convinced by the RIAA’s arguments alone. That’s not to say that they’re wrong, but he suggests that this case could benefit from YouTube’s input on the matter. Particularly because there are “some pretty big stakes here.”

“This could be easily solved. And my hunch is what it is. It’s going to be clear that there are other technological measures that are here. But right now, YouTube’s staying out of it and we’re kind of guessing, Judge Sullivan noted.

Both attorneys were confronted with critical questions during the hearing, as is often the case. This means that it is too early to draw any conclusions. It is clear, however, that YouTube holds the keys to many of the questions that have come up. Whether it will be heard, however, is for the Court of Appeals to decide.

—

A copy of the full hearing is available here (mp3) .

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Founded in 1996, the Internet Archive has built an unparalleled library of digital artifacts in less than three decades.

Many people are familiar with the website archiving project “Wayback Machine” but the non-profit also has many other preservation projects underway.

These meticulous archiving skills are a vital part of the digital history books, which are being ‘written’ as we speak. However, good intentions themselves are not immune to copyright complaints, or worse, multi-million dollar lawsuits.

The Great 78 Project

Six years ago, the Archive teamed up with other libraries and experts to archive the sounds of 78-rpm gramophone records, which are obsolete today. In addition to capturing their unique audio, including all crackles and hisses, this saves unique recordings for future generations before the vinyl or shellac disintegrates.

The ‘ Great 78 Project ‘ received praise from curators, historians, and music fans. However, not all music industry insiders were happy with it, as the copying took place without obtaining permission from all rightsholders.

Last summer, a group of major music labels including Capitol, Sony, and UMG, decided to take action. In a complaint filed at a U.S. federal court, they sued the Internet Archive , its founder Brewster Kale, and others they believe are responsible.

“When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime. Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, but it undermines the value of music,” the labels wrote.

With 2,749 recordings at stake, the potential statutory damages could run to more than $400 million. However, the Internet Archive (IA) sees things differently, believing that the ‘Great 78 Project’ is fair use.

IA Files Motion to Dismiss

Filed a few days ago, IA’s motion to dismiss stresses that it’s important to archive these older records, some of which date back to the late 19th century. The records have been obsolete since the 1950s but that doesn’t mean that their sounds should be lost forever, IA argues.

“The specific quality of the sound, including the peculiar and distinct crackles and other imperfections that are a hallmark of this antiquated medium formed an indelible part of American culture for many decades,” the motion notes.

“But the physical recordings themselves tend to disintegrate over time—and as the complete set of these old records gradually becomes unplayable, their unique contributions to our history is on a precipitous path to oblivion.”

The lawsuit will ultimately have to decide whether the ‘The Great 78 Project’ is allowed to exist under U.S. copyright law. The motion to dismiss also deals with another time-sensitive issue.

Specifically, IA argues that many of the works should be removed from the lawsuit, as the labels failed to take timely action following a cease and desist letter the RIAA sent in 2020. This letter pointed out concrete copyright concerns, but the labels allegedly took too long before filing their lawsuit.

RIAA’s Cease and Desist

The U.S. Copyright Act has a three-year statute of limitations. This means that, after discovering concrete copyright infringements, a lawsuit has to be filed within this window. That didn’t happen here, according to IA.

The RIAA letter didn’t list any specific recordings but referenced artists including Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday. It further characterized IA as a platform that enables piracy on a massive scale, mentioning “thousands” of recordings.

“Although the Internet Archive is rife with infringing copies of sound recordings, perhaps the most prominent example of this infringement is the ‘Great 78 Project’,” RIAA wrote in its letter.

“Your unauthorized reproduction, distribution and public performance of these recordings is a plain violation of the RIAA member companies’ rights under the Classics Protection and Access Act (‘Classics Act’), 17 U.S.C. § 1401, and constitutes nothing less than piracy on a massive scale.”

IA Replied

IA’s motion to dismiss recognizes that the RIAA sent this letter. At the same time, it adds more context, pointing out that founder Brewster Kahle replied to the letter . Among other things, Kahle noted that rightsholders can send takedown notices or request the exclusion of certain artists and recordings.

According to the motion to dismiss, RIAA never responded to this reply, and the project continued in the years that followed.

“Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle promptly responded that the project would gladly exclude any digitization of the labels’ recordings that they identified to Internet Archive. The record labels never responded to that letter,” the motion reads.

A follow-up eventually came when the RIAA member labels filed a lawsuit, more than three years later. The timing is important, as IA argues that the lawsuit falls outside the three-year statute of limitations.

Statute of Limitations

According to U.S. copyright law, the three-year period begins when a rightsholder ‘discovers’ the infringement. IA now argues that the labels were aware of alleged “Great 78 Project” infringements when the RIAA sent its letter.

“[T]he letter acknowledges plaintiffs’ belief, as of July 22, 2020, that ‘thousands’ of recordings had already been digitized and uploaded to the Great 78 Project, including those by specific named artists,” IA writes.

“And even if Plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge of those alleged acts of infringement, the RIAA letter at a minimum demonstrates that a reasonable plaintiff ‘should have discovered’ the alleged infringement and that a cause of action for infringement had accrued as of that date.”

The IA argues that since many claims fall outside the three-year period, they should be dismissed. While some claims may remain, this will help to significantly narrow the scope of the case, as well as the potential damages.

At the time of writing, the labels have yet to respond to IA’s argument. They may see things differently but, on the surface, the timing seems unfortunate. Had they filed their case a few weeks earlier, this issue wouldn’t have come up.

Finally, the Kahle-Austin Foundation filed a separate motion to dismiss. The foundation argues that there are no grounds to include it in the lawsuit, as it only helps to fund the Internet Archive.

—

The motion to dismiss filed by the Internet Archive and related defendants is available here (pdf) . The motion from the Kahle-Austin Foundation can be found here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

On December 14, 2022, a group of music rightsholders including BMG, UMG, and Capitol filed a complaint at a Texas district court, accusing Altice, the parent company of ISP Optimum, of facilitating massive copyright infringement.

Just days ahead of that lawsuit’s one-year anniversary , Altice now finds itself fighting a second and substantially similar lawsuit, filed by 49 member labels of the RIAA at the same Texas court.

Different Plaintiffs, Same Underlying Allegations

Filed at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the complaint has Warner Records, Sony Music, plus another 47 recording labels, alleging contributory and vicarious copyright infringement against Altice, owner of ISP Optimum.

The ISP “knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers” the labels claim.

By now the base allegations are very familiar. The labels claim that many of the ISP’s 200,000 Texas-based subscribers used Altice’s network to “directly and repeatedly infringe” the plaintiffs’ copyrights by sharing their musical works on BitTorrent networks. After failing to suspend or terminate the accounts of these customers, even after receiving multiple notices of their infringing activity, the plaintiffs say that Altice must now be held to account.

“Specifically, Plaintiffs seek relief for claims that accrued between December 2020 – December 2023…for infringement of works by Altice subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified to Altice in multiple infringement notices,” the complaint notes.

Egregious Repeat Infringers

To highlight the extent of infringing conduct by Altice customers, the complaint provides information on three “egregious repeat infringers” believed to be located in Tyler, Athens, and Jacksonville respectively.

Identified only by an IP address, the first subscriber was reportedly caught distributing (uploading) copyrighted works owned by the plaintiffs over 75 times between January 2023 and March 2023. A second subscriber was observed uploading the labels’ copyrighted works over 70 times between August 2021 and April 2023, while a third was caught over 100 times between December 2021 and June 2022.

The plaintiffs say that in all three cases and for each instance of observed infringement, notifications were sent to Altice advising the ISP that infringement was ongoing. According to the labels, no action was taken to either suspend or terminate the accounts of these and other repeat infringers, despite the ISP having the right and ability to do so.

Infringement Contrary to Altice Policies, and the Law

The labels claim they were forced to file a lawsuit against Altice because the ISP “has gone out of its way not to take action against subscribers engaging in repeated copyright infringement, at the expense of copyright owners.”

The complaint alleges that Altice’s failure to take action stands contrary to its own policies.

The company’s ‘Copyright Infringement Policy’ states that subscribers must not “store, distribute or otherwise disseminate” content in a manner that infringes third-party intellectual property rights. The labels claim that Altice failed to follow its own rules which state that its response to infringement may include account suspensions or terminations “in appropriate circumstances.”

“[A]ltice knew that its subscribers routinely used its networks for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, especially music,” the complaint continues.

“Plaintiffs repeatedly notified Altice that thousands of its subscribers were actively utilizing its service to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Those notices gave Altice the specific identities of its subscribers engaged in copyright infringement, referred to by their unique Internet Protocol or ‘IP’ addresses. Altice also received millions of notices from other copyright owners, some of which undoubtedly addressed the same subscribers as Plaintiffs’ notices.”

No Safe Harbor Under DMCA

According to the complaint, between February 2020 through November 2023, the plaintiffs sent 70,000 DMCA-compliant copyright infringement notices which detailed specific infringements carried out by specific Altice subscribers using P2P protocols including BitTorrent.

Previously, evidence was supplied by anti-piracy company Rightscorp but in this case monitoring was carried out by OpSec LLC, previously known as MarkMonitor.

Using proprietary technology, OpSec’s system connected with Altice subscribers using P2P software and confirmed, in each instance, (1) that the subscriber was online, (2) that the subscriber was running a file sharing program, (3) that the subscriber told OpSec that it possessed a confirmed infringing file, identified by a unique “hash” value, and (4) that the subscriber in fact began to distribute the confirmed infringing file, identified by unique “hash” value. OpSec also verified the file hashes to confirm that Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works were being distributed. Once OpSec had collected this evidence of infringement, OpSec generated and sent a notice of infringement to Altice.

“Put another way,” the complaint continues, “while Plaintiffs undertook the burden and responsibility of monitoring Altice’s network for infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, only Altice could take action against its subscribers for violating Altice’s own Copyright Infringement Policy and Terms of Service by infringing Plaintiffs’ works.”

Instead, the labels add, Altice turned a blind eye to massive infringement, despite knowing which subscribers were engaged in repeat infringement while having the right and ability to end it, including by suspending or terminating their accounts.

Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement

The complaint describes Altice as a willful, intentional, and purposeful contributory infringer, and therefore liable for the direct infringements carried out by its subscribers. The labels seek up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringement or an amount to be determined at trial.

The labels say that Altice is also liable as a vicarious infringer after deriving “an obvious and direct financial benefit from its customers’ infringement” including through the collection of “illicit revenue” from subscribers who should’ve been suspended but were not. Again, the labels seek up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringement or an amount to be determined at trial.

The complaint is available here (pdf)

Full list of plaintiffs as follows:

Warner Records Inc.
Atlantic Recording Corporation
Atlantic Records Group LLC
Bad Boy Records LLC
Big Beat Records Inc.
Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.
Fueled by Ramen LLC
Lava Records LLC
Maverick Recording Company
Nonesuch Records Inc.
Rhino Entertainment Company
Rhino Entertainment LLC
Roadrunner Records, Inc.
Rykodisc, Inc.
Warner Music Inc.
Warner Music International Services Limited
Warner Music Nashville LLC
Warner Records/QRI Venture, Inc.
Sony Music Entertainment
Arista Music
Arista Records, LLC
LaFace Records, LLC
Sony Music Entertainment US Latin LLC
Ultra Records, LLC
Volcano Entertainment III, LLC
Zomba Recording LLC
Warner Chappell Music, Inc.
Cotillion Music, Inc.
Gene Autry’s Western Music Publishing Co.
Golden West Melodies, Inc.
Intersong U.S.A., Inc.
Unichappell Music Inc.
W Chappell Music Corp.
W.C.M. Music Corp.
Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp.
Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC
Colgems-EMI Music Inc.
EMI April Music Inc.
EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
EMI Consortium Music Publishing, Inc.
EMI Consortium Songs, Inc.
EMI Entertainment World Inc.
EMI Gold Horizon Music Corp.
EMI Miller Catalog Inc.
EMI Mills Music Inc.
EMI Robbins Catalog Inc.
EMI U Catalog Inc.
EMI Unart Catalog Inc.
Famous Music LLC
Jobete Music Co., Inc.
Screen Gems-EMI Music Inc.
Stone Agate Music
Stone Diamond Music Corp.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Over the past year, new artificial intelligence tools and services have been surfacing everywhere.

This AI boom followed the success of ChatGPT and many people believe these recent developments are just the beginning.

While entrepreneurs and the public at large are mostly focused on the new possibilities the technology offers, many copyright holders are focused on potential threats. This includes the music industry’s anti-piracy arm, the RIAA , which previously took action against a popular AI-related Discord server that was shut down last week.

Artificial intelligence also makes an appearance in the RIAA’s latest overview of foreign sites and services that present copyright and other intellectual property challenges.

Responding to a request from the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), the music group added “AI Vocal Cloning” as a new category in its annual overview of ‘notorious’ piracy markets.

“The year 2023 saw an eruption of unauthorized AI vocal clone services that infringe not only the rights of the artists whose voices are being cloned but also the rights of those that own the sound recordings in each underlying musical track.

“This has led to an explosion of unauthorized derivative works of our members’ sound recordings which harm sound recording artists and copyright owners,” the RIAA reports.

Voicify.ai

The music group sees vocal cloning websites as a broader problem, but mentions just one service by name; Voicify.ai . With over a million monthly visits this is one of the largest players, with subscription fees starting at $7.99 a month.

Voicify focuses on AI covers and allows users to create a new version of a track by simply adding a YouTube link and picking a voice model. The voice models mimic popular artists such as Ariana, Bruno Mars, Elvis, Eminem, and Taylor Swift, but Donald Trump and Spongebob are popular options too.

This site promotes itself as the “#1 platform for making high quality AI covers in seconds!” but the RIAA mainly sees copyright troubles with the Amazon-hosted service.

Rights of Publicity

According to the RIAA’s description, Voicify effectively stream-rips YouTube music videos. It then separates the acapella track and uses the AI voice model to alter that, after which it is added to the underlying musical bed to create the cover.

The RIAA believes that ripping YouTube tracks is a violation of the DMCA and using a voice model to create a derivative work is problematic too. On top of that, the voice models infringe the artists’ rights of publicity .

“This unauthorized activity infringes copyright as well as infringing the sound recording artist’s rights of publicity,” RIAA writes.

This ‘publicity’ right allows artists to control how their names, images, and likenesses are used in a commercial setting. That could also apply to their voices when exploited by a third party.

Evolving AI Challenges

This isn’t the first time that AI voice models have been called out. Earlier this year, Sony Music raised concerns about AI vocals and an AI-generated collaboration between ‘Drake’ and ‘The Weeknd’ was silenced over copyright concerns around the same time.

The RIAA arrived at the party early. Before the ChatGPT boom started, the music group had already signaled AI as an emerging threat . At the time, it was concerned with tools that could extract vocals or music beds, but those are old news today.

At the pace that new services are being rolled out today, Voicify might also be horribly outdated again a year from now. However, AI concerns are unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.

Traditional Piracy Threats Remain

Aside from the emerging AI threat, the RIAA remains concerned over more traditional piracy tools as well. This includes torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay and 1337x, as well as stream rippers, direct download portals, and cyberlockers.

Similarly, bulletproof hosting companies such as FlokiNET and PRQ are awarded with a “notorious” mark and the same applies to domain name privacy provider Njal.la and alternative app store Aptoid.

The RIAA’s full list of “notorious” sites and services can be found below, and the full report is available here (pdf)

—–

The cursive listings are new this year and those that were removed are crossed out. The RIAA stresses that these are mere examples as this is a non-exhaustive overview.

Stream-Ripping Sites

– ssyoutube.com
– ytmp3.nu
– mp3juices.cc
– flvto.biz and 2conv.com
– y2mate.com (and related sites yt1s.com, 9convert.com, and tomp3.cc)
– savefrom.net (and related site savef.net)
– ssyoutube.com
– Snaptube app and related domains
– tubidy.watch (tubidy.mobi, tubidy.com, tubidy.buzz, tubidy.ws9)

Music Download Sites

– newalbumreleases.net
– intmusic.net
– ak47full.com
– fakaza.com
– hiphopda.com
– bazenation.com
– itopmusicx.com
– songswave.com

BitTorrent Indexing Sites

– thepiratebay.org
– 1337x.to and mirrored at 1337x.is, 1337x.se, 1337x.st, x1337x.ws, x1337x.eu, and x1337x.se)
– rarbg.to
– torrentgalaxy.to

Cyberlockers

– zippyshare.com
– dbree.org
– rapidgator.net
– turbobit.net
– krakenfiles.com
– ddownload.com
– onlyfiles.io

Unauthorized Short Form Video Services

– likee.video
AI Based Extractors/Mixers

– acapella-extractor.com
– remove-vocals.com
– songmastr.com

AI Vocal Cloning

– voicify.ai

Additional Issues

– Bulletproof ISPS: PRQ, FlokiNET, Frantech Solutions/BuyVM/ PONYNET , DDoS Guard.
– Nigerian-Operated Infringing Sites: thenetnaija.net, trendybeatz.com, justnaija.com, 24naijamuzic.com and bazenation.com.
– Other intermediaries: Njal.la, A-Ads/Equativ, Softonic/Aptoid.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Google’s Play Store offers a vast library of millions of apps, in pretty much every category imaginable.

Most of the software is perfectly legitimate but there are some problematic apps too, including those that can be abused by pirates.

Over the years, rightsholders have reported many thousands of apps, often for copyright infringement. While some of these takedown notices are questionable , most pirate apps quietly disappear from the platform.

The RIAA is one of the entertainment industry outfits keeping an eye on Google Play. The anti-piracy group is known to target stream-rippers that allow people to download music from YouTube. This resulted in several lawsuits and thousands of takedown notices , mostly aimed at Google Search.

RIAA Flags Music Apps

In recent weeks, we have seen a series of notices from the RIAA that target music download apps in Google Play. The notices appeared in the Lumen database , where Google publishes its takedown requests. Before August there were less than a handful of requests by the music group; since then more than sixty have been filed.

The takedown notices all target music-related apps. Many of these promise free music, MP3 download functionality, and the option to download videos and music from social media sites.

“Search, download and play music offline wherever you are. MP3 Download & Music Downloader search mp3, download high quality music for free,” one of the apps boasts .

Other apps specifically target themselves as ‘tube’ download tools, but carefully avoid mentioning YouTube. There are some that reference popular YouTube ripper brands such as “MP3Juice” to grab people’s attention.

5+ Million Downloads

The RIAA sees these applications as pirate tools. In most cases, the apps have a few thousand installs at most, but there is one that clearly stands out.

With more than five million downloads and more than 78,000 reviews, ‘ Video & Music Downloader ‘ is a massive target. The app was released roughly a year ago and continues to grow at a rapid pace.

‘Video & Music Downloader’ doesn’t explicitly advertise itself as a tool to convert music videos into MP3s, but many people may use it for that reason. On this ‘circumvention’ ground, RIAA would like to have it removed from Google Play.

Thus far, the app remains online. It’s unclear whether Google denied RIAA’s request or whether it is still under review. However, looking more closely at all flagged URLs, we see that the enforcement efforts have mixed results.

Mixed Results

After reviewing all 68 takedown requests filed since mid-August, we found that the majority of the apps are still online. A total of thirty apps were removed from Google Play.

We don’t want to draw overly-strong conclusions, but it appears that Google has denied some of RIAA’s takedowns intentionally. At the bottom of this article, we’ve listed a complete overview of all the apps and their current availability.

It’s possible that some requests may have been denied because the apps don’t openly advertise themselves as music-ripping tools. For example, the popular ‘Video & Music Downloader’ listing doesn’t mention that it can convert music videos to MP3s, but it does so on its own website . The term YouTube isn’t mentioned anywhere.

Increased Enforcement

It’s apparent that the RIAA has stepped up its Google Play enforcement actions recently. However, the recent surge in requests may be partly related to reporting changes at Google’s end. The music group told TorrentFreak that infringing apps have been on its radar for a while now.

“RIAA has been enforcing against apps that engage in the infringement of our members recordings since 2009. Mobile app piracy remains a top priority and we will continue to expand our efforts in response to changes in the mobile app space.”

To find out if anything changed on Google’s end we requested a comment, but the company didn’t immediately reply.

In any case, the RIAA is trying hard to get music downloading apps removed from Google Play. While it has enjoyed some success, this is easier said than done. App developers will become more cautious in how they advertise their tools, carefully avoiding ‘problematic’ words.

—

All of the apps flagged by the RIAA as problematic between August 18 and September 21 are listed below. The URLs marked with an asterisk have been removed from Google Play and those marked with a minus remain available.

<sup>– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp4mp3
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Tamjar.Mp3Download
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=downloader.vitmate.downloaderapp.freedownload
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.locmusic.playersong
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.syahidaapps.coldplaysongsoffline
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=vymate.videodownloader.storysaver.vimate.dmate
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.videodownloader.videosplayer.downloader.privatebrowser
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juice.mp3juices.alMp3
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cl.ultimate.mp3music.downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.arc.mp3downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubemusic.descargarmp3.musicadescargar.tubeplay
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=my.ultratube.adsfree
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mazikatool.tikmezik
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.soundmixtop.downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.musicagratisxyz.downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.videodownloader.downloadvideoappfree
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ultrahd.videodownloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.audiotuner.midistock
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.enqimusic.mp3downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.musica.gratis.downloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.playmusic.music.player.mp3.download.snptube.downoader.free.app
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.freemusic.download.ddplmnb
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.idtubidy.musicdownloaderapp.tubidymp3.tubidymusic
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.descargar.musica.download.mp3.gratis.baixar.music.downloader.free.lagu
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.freemp3.mp3juices33
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.baixargratis.savemp3
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sntube.mp3.downloader.all.music.freesongs.download.app
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubejet.mp3musictube.tubemp3downloader.tubeplay
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.anydownloader.video.downloader.videodownloader
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.download.music.song[.]mp3
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=allvideodownloader.videodownloader.downloader.alltube.tubemate.tubedownloader.y2mate.ytdownloader
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juices.nu.ytmp3.nu.mp3downloader.mp3juices.cc.ovipco
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.music.song.mp3.play.download.telecharger
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.songworld.downloadmusic
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juice.mp3juices.music.downloader.download.mp3.gratis.free.app
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bpentertainment.tubidyiemp3app
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.visionxstudio.musify
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.musicplayer.android.mp3music.ptrb
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yingzzliushi.tube.downloader.new
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubidy.mp3musicdownloaderapp.android.free
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.all.video.downloader.eponnj
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubidy.mp3musicdownloaderapp.android.free
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yingzzliushi.tube.downloader.new
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.anyvideodownloader.videodownloader.allvideo
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=descargar.musica.mp3.gratis.music.downloader.free.download.tubeplay
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubidycloud.musicdownload.mp3.mobi
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juicecom.musicmp3juice.mp3juice.musicdownloader
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juice.musicdownloader.free[.]mp3
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spy.socialVideodownloader.j
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.en1.y2mate.is.y2mate.com.mp3downloader.mp3juices.ytmp3.putrimp3
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=elshayeb.bigsamsongs.com
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.SayaliMusic.TubeMp3Download
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3.music.downloader.mp3juice.mp3juices.fm.download.songs.all.free.app.jdd
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ytmp3musicvideo.downloaderapp.forandroid
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=download.musicmp3.allsongs
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.verybestmobile.itunesmusicvideos&hl=en-US
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tubidycloud.Musicdownloadmp3.t
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juicevin.mp3juicenu.mp3juicecc.mp3juicecom.mp3juicela
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.savefromnetinc.mp3juicecc.musicdownloader
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.streaming.videomusic
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pantherabaliska.waptrickmusik
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mkvplayer.zoovideoplayer
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.downloader.newmusic.musicdownloader.music
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=videoplayer.videodownloader.Downloader.t
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=public_local.video.local.songs.indian.tube.download.downloader.publik
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3musicdownload.newmusic
– https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lddi.karaoke.offline
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mp3juice.mp3musicdownloader.mp3.juices</sup>

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

To address counterfeiting and piracy, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invited submissions from the private sector detailing effective anti-piracy strategies and those envisioned for the future.

In advance of a roundtable scheduled for October 3, submissions from rightsholders and their representatives have called for pirate site blocking in the United States and amendments to the DMCA that would allow for instant blocking of pirate streams .

Big Coalition

The International Intellectual Property Alliance is a coalition of already powerful trade associations, including the Motion Picture Association, Recording Industry Association of America, Entertainment Software Association, Independent Film & Television Alliance, and the Association of American Publishers. IIPA aims to improve copyright protection and enforcement in overseas markets with high levels of piracy.

The IIPA’s submission begins by painting a picture of creativity and productivity in the United States versus an “entrenchment of infringing services” in foreign markets. IIPA says that online piracy harms the creative industries in the United States, causes hardships for U.S. creators, undermines exports of legal content, which in turn impacts returning revenue.

The coalition cites numerous studies dating back to 2013 that have concluded, to a greater or lesser extent, that piracy reduces legitimate sales. The numbers are huge; over $29 billion in lost revenue for movies and TV shows alone each year, plus the loss of up to 560,000 jobs.

While the first figure is straight from a Hollywood study and the second could also be ‘just’ half of that, the numbers are still big. The main point is that IIPA members are huge contributors to the United States and in order for that to continue and grow, significant changes are required at the international level.

‘Notorious Markets’ Should Be Dismantled

Each year the United States Trade Representative receives submissions from rightsholders that detail overseas sites and services causing significant problems for rightsholders. After consideration, the USTR produces a ‘notorious markets’ report which lists the piracy platforms and attributes them to specific countries.

The general idea is for those countries to recognize how relations with the United States might improve if those platforms were no longer in business, and then act accordingly. ‘Notorious markets’ have been taken down over the years but the IIPA sounds keen to see additional positive action, especially when criminal syndicates are involved.

“There have been many successes with the closure of Internet sites and services identified as notorious markets by USTR. IIPA’s long-standing recommendation is that USTR should urge trading partners either to convert sites and services to licensed disseminators of works and recordings, or these notorious markets should be taken down followed by, where appropriate, criminal enforcement actions,” IIPA writes.

Create an Effective Legal Framework

This request is supported by significant detail on what the IIPA would like to see changed, but isn’t explicit on the problem it needs to mitigate or why it can’t be handled under existing law. Where the issue is being encountered is loosely linked to cyberlocker-type sites based in Russia, but the problem is clearly more widespread.

Taking the section as a whole, it appears that copyright enforcement measures are frustrated when pirate sites and/or their service providers present as being in compliance with the law and keep up the charade to stay in business.

“Some services, including some clearly pirate services, attempt to rely on notice and takedown procedures to avoid proper copyright licensing,” IIPA notes. “Clear primary and secondary liability rules are necessary to discourage abuses and to avoid inaction or license evasion.”

What the IIPA seems to want are acknowledged bright lines on conduct that remove any ability to claim compliance when services are obviously infringing, sometimes criminally so. In turn, this would allow rightsholders to lean on intermediaries with a credible discussion on secondary liability, thus gaining their voluntary cooperation – or else.

The goal is a legal framework that: (i) prevents the operation of services that promote or otherwise induce infringement; (ii) criminalizes online infringement (particularly all ‘commercial scale’ piracy, in line with best practices); and (iii) provides strong incentives for neutral intermediaries to work with rights holders to curb the use of their proprietary networks and services for infringing purposes

Within the framework, IIPA’s members would have their exclusive rights respected, including those that relate to technical protection measures. As for internet service providers, bright lines should govern their behavior too.

ISP Liability Limitations….Should Be Limited

According to the submission, the proposed legal framework should ensure that ISP liability limitations (if there are any at all) should not “reduce the scope of substantive copyright protections” and should only be available to ISPs that meet eligibility criteria.

For example, upon an ISP “obtaining knowledge or awareness” of infringing activity, the allegedly-infringing content should be removed “expeditiously” before the ISP takes further action using “measures demonstrated effective” to prevent or restrain further infringement. That sounds not dissimilar to current understanding of the law in many developed countries, with the filtering requirements of the EU’s Article 17 bolted on top.

Within the framework, IIPA says that governments should recognize online piracy as a form of cybercrime, foster cooperation among all industry stakeholders (including ISPs) in the online supply chain, and if there are any impediments to collaboration, remove them.

“[G]overnments should encourage private sector agreements, especially those that provide enforcement rights, to properly reflect the needs of industry stakeholders, and that any remedies outside of a legal framework are available to all copyright owners,” the submission reads.

“In addition, governments should require marketplaces and encourage all relevant intermediaries to implement ‘know your business customers’ (KYBC) policies to ensure they keep up to date and accurate information about their customers and to allow rights holders to obtain accurate information to protect their rights against direct infringers.”

ICANN and Cloudflare (probably)

Difficulties linking domain names to individuals have persisted for several years. The IIPA’s submission places the blame at the feet of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The coalition makes no suggestions on what should be done but its statements leave no real doubt.

The lack of meaningful access to accurate domain registrant data occurs because of ICANN’s “failure to meaningfully enforce a requirement for accurate registrant data collection, (ii) ICANN’s failure to implement approved policies concerning privacy/proxy services, and (iii) ICANN’s overinterpretation of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has almost entirely shut down access to registrant WHOIS data.”

Despite being a coalition interested in reducing infringement overseas, IIPA’s submission finds itself referencing a problem that is overwhelmingly seen in the United States and has already been mentioned in several anti-piracy reports; reverse proxy services and the layer of anonymity they provide.

IIPA doesn’t mention Cloudflare by name but on the basis that most significant pirate sites do indeed use Cloudflare, it’s safe to assume we’re talking about the American company with the same name. In any event, IIPA is calling for the U.S. government to get involved.

“While reverse proxy services serve a legitimate purpose, many pirate sites utilize reverse proxy services to hide true hosting information and to transmit large files faster. Such uses make enforcement against these sites extremely challenging. IIPA requests that the U.S. government include reverse proxy services in its efforts to address this widespread, systemic problem and to stop the misuse of such services.”

The IIPA’s submission is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

As the Internet Archive continues to deal with an adverse ruling in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the world’s largest publishing companies, late Friday some of the world’s largest record labels launched similar legal action in the United States.

Filed in Manhattan federal court, the complaint lists UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Concord Bicycle Assets, CMGI Recorded Music Assets, Sony Music and Arista Music as plaintiffs, with Internet Archive (IA), founder Brewster Kahle, Kahle/Austin Foundation, George Blood and George Blood L.P named as defendants.

Pre-1972 78rpm Records by Iconic Artists, All Deceased

The plaintiffs’ complaint focuses on the Internet Archive’s ‘Great 78 Project’ which aims to preserve, research and discover 78rpm records produced between 1898 and the 1950s.

“While the commercially viable recordings will have been restored or remastered onto LP’s or CD, there is still research value in the artifacts and usage evidence in the often rare 78rpm discs and recordings,” IA wrote following the launch of the project in 2017.

“Already, over 20 collections have been selected by the Internet Archive for physical and digital preservation and access. Started by many volunteer collectors, these new collections have been selected, digitized and preserved by the Internet Archive, George Blood LP, and the Archive of Contemporary Music.”

From IA’s perspective, the project is all about the preservation of art. From the diametrically opposed view of the plaintiffs, the defendants willfully made copies thousands of recordings to which they own the copyrights. The digitized copies were then uploaded to the Internet Archive from where they were illegally distributed to users of the website millions of times.

The complaint lists 2,769 individual works from some of the most fmaous artists of all time, including Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, and Louis Armstrong. Listed songs include “White Christmas” by Bing Crosby, “Sing, Sing, Sing” by Benny Goodman, “Peggy Sue” by Buddy Holly, and “Roll Over Beethoven” by Chuck Berry.

Plaintiffs: Preservation Claims Are a “Smokescreen”

The nonprofit Internet Archive is known for its ambitious projects that aim to retain, restore and redistribute content that they believe should never be lost to history. For the plaintiffs, these grand ambitions are nothing but a “smokescreen” to hide what amounts to IA offering “free and unlimited access to music for everyone,” regardless of copyright.

“In truth, Defendants’ malfeasance springs from their disregard for copyright law and the rights of artists and content owners. Internet Archive and the other Defendants have a long history of opposing, fighting, and ignoring copyright law, proclaiming that their zealotry serves the public good. In reality, Defendants are nothing more than mass infringers,” the complaint reads.

The record companies further reject claims that the music being made available illegally needs to be ‘saved’. They claim that of the 2,749 recordings listed in the complaint, all but a “small sample” are already available to stream or download from licensed online platforms so they “face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.”

The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction, and when it transferred those copies to the public, yet another. When it streamed unlicensed copies to the public, each time that constituted an unlicensed public performance.

“When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime. Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, but it undermines the value of music,” the complaint adds.

Overall Infringement and Claims For Relief

The plaintiffs allege that the Great 78 Project contains more than 400,000 works that have been downloaded or streamed millions of times. In a letter sent by the RIAA to IA in 2020, the plaintiffs allege that IA owner Brewster Kahle was informed of the following:

“You and Internet Archive have reproduced thousands of sound recordings in which RIAA member companies own or exclusively control copyrights, and have made those recordings available to the public for unrestricted download and streaming, all without the consent of the rights owners.

“Your unauthorized reproduction, distribution and public performance of these recordings is a plain violation of the RIAA member companies’ rights under 17 U.S.C. § 1401 , and constitutes nothing less than piracy on a massive scale.”

The RIAA says that Kahle and the Internet Archive were ordered to “immediately cease and desist from their infringement” but the demand was ignored.

The complaint lists several causes of action against different combinations of defendants, including unlawful reproduction under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 1401(a)(1) for which the companies are entitled damages and any profits accrued. Alternatively the record companies seek statutory damages of $150,000 for each protected recording infringed, so with over 2,700 works in suit, damages could exceed $400m.

Other claims include infringing reproduction and distribution, infringing public performance, contributory copyright infringement, inducement of infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement. The companies also seek injunctive relief to restrain “continuing infringing conduct.”

The complaint and list of sound recordings are available here ( 1 , 2 , pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Historically, the domain name WHOIS system has been an important tool to track down the operators of pirate sites and services.

While WHOIS data is not always accurate, it is still helpful in holding site operators accountable, at least when the information is available for access.

In recent years, access to domain registration information has often been restricted. This change is in large part the result of EU General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), a privacy law that limits the availability of personal information in public databases.

In response to the law, domain name oversight body ICANN implemented a measure to restrict access to personal WHOIS data for gTLDs, unless explicit permission is granted. This was a welcome privacy upgrade for many domain registrants, but anti-piracy groups were not happy .

.US WHOIS Restrictions

Copyright holders have complained about the stricter privacy rules but were pleased to see that these didn’t apply universally. The .US ccTLD, for example, which falls under the oversight of the United States Department of Commerce’s NTIA , remains publicly accessible.

Public access helps enforcement efforts but also has some drawbacks. Since anyone can access the private details of domain registrants anonymously, the information can be used to spam, phish, or dox people.

To reduce the potential for abuse, NTIA and its contractor GoDaddy are proposing to limit anonymous access to .US registrant data and make information seekers accountable too.

“In response to concerns about the potential for abuse of usTLD registrant data, NTIA is considering a proposal from its Contractor to create an Accountable WHOIS Gateway System to provide public access to usTLD registrant information,” NTIA noted.

“The System would require those seeking access to the usTLD registration data to provide their name, an email address, and to accept the Terms of Service (TOS).”

RIAA Opposes WHOIS Shield

Earlier this year, NTIA asked the public for input on this proposal. As expected, that triggered opposition from various parties including the music industry’s anti-piracy watchdog, RIAA.

In response to the proposal, RIAA points out that EU privacy regulation and proxy registration services for many top-level domains have made it virtually impossible to obtain accurate registrant data for anti-piracy purposes.

The .US TLD is a rare exception, which is also apparent in the abuse numbers. Pirate sites tend to avoid .US domain names, presumably because WHOIS data is publicly available.

“We have seen much less copyright infringement on sites with .us domains than on those in the gTLD space,” RIAA writes.

This statement is backed up by figures showing that copyright infringement through .US domain names is trending down in recent years, while it has increased on .COM domain names.

WHOIS data is not only important to catch pirates, RIAA writes. It can also be helpful to other investigators, including law enforcement agencies, who also deal with online harms.

At the same time, RIAA suggests that the harm faced by registrants is minimal. At least, the organization is not aware of any concrete examples where public .US WHOIS information has caused any problems.

“[W]hile we have heard of anecdotal evidence of harm to registrants generally, we don’t know of any documented, verifiable, widespread, pervasive harm to .us registrants caused by publicly available registrant data.”

Why Change?

NTIA doesn’t propose to make it entirely impossible for rightsholders and other interested parties to obtain WHOIS data. Instead, it wants to hold WHOIS data seekers accountable, by asking them for their information as well.

This shouldn’t prevent RIAA and other rightsholders from accessing WHOIS records, but the RIAA sees no reason to change the status quo.

“Given the steep rise of cyber problems since the WHOIS data for gTLDs was masked, and the challenges such masking has caused to those combatting those problems, we don’t understand why .us would change its current policies.

“Accordingly, the current system of access to usTLD domain name registration data should remain unchanged, and we do not support efforts to create unnecessary gates around registrant data,” RIAA adds.

If NTIA decides to block unlimited and anonymous access to WHOIS data, RIAA notes that copyright holders should be granted free and immediate access. In addition, WHOIS data should be vetted through ‘know-your-customer’ requirements, while corporate domain registrations should remain publicly accessible.

—

A copy of RIAA’s full response to the NTIA’s proposal was published this week and is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

With over 142k members, the ‘AI Hub’ Discord server is a thriving community that opens the door to lots of AI-related content.

There’s a wide variety of information available, including voice models of major musicians such as Bruno Mars, Frank Sinatra, Rihanna, and Stevie Wonder.

All of this information can be used to make homebrew AI tracks that mimic the sound of one’s favorite artists. This is a highly controversial topic in the music industry, with many insiders suggesting that commercial use of these models could breach copyright law.

Exactly what is allowed and what isn’t is a topic of legislative debate. In the United States, for example, Congress is actively looking into the matter through a series of hearings.

RIAA Targets ‘AI Hub’ Discord Server

The RIAA , which represents the rights of American music companies, is keeping a very close eye on the AI landscape. In a letter sent earlier this month, the anti-piracy group effectively asked Discord to shut down the AI Hub server.

Whether the voice models are the main issue here is unclear. It’s certainly possible that the music group views the complete datasets of music posted by some users as more problematic.

The letter to Discord simply states that AI Hub is dedicated to copyright infringement of its members’ works.

“We have learned that Discord is operating and/or hosting the below-referenced Discord server(s) on its network. This server(s) is/are dedicated to infringing our members’ copyrighted sound recordings by offering, selling, linking to, hosting, streaming, and/or distributing files containing our members’ sound recordings without authorization.”

Shut Down Server, Ban Repeat Infringers

The anti-piracy group wants the server taken offline and warnings issued to its operators. Specifically, the RIAA asks Discord to take the following steps:

(i) remove and/or disable access to this Discord server
(ii) remove the files or links from your system, including any mirrored or duplicate copies of those files or links, and/or that you disable all access to the infringing files and associated links
(iii) inform the server operator/s and the uploader/ to that server(s), as applicable, of the illegality of their conduct.

In addition, repeat-infringers should be permanently booted from the platform, the group notes, which would be in line with Discord’s copyright policy .

This strongly worded letter is a follow-up to a similar request sent in late May. At the time, the AI Hub server had 82k users but in the space of just a few weeks, that number has grown to a massive 143k and counting.

Infringing Voice models?

Discord hasn’t taken the complete server offline, as the RIAA requested, but several messages have since disappeared. The letter came with a list of URLs that are going nowhere now.

The reported links don’t reveal the nature of the content. TorrentFreak asked the RIAA for more detail on their takedown notice and whether it sees voice models as copyright infringements, but the group couldn’t go into detail citing “pending litigation”. More on that later.

We can’t independently confirm that voice models were targeted but some suggest that this could be the case. A few hours ago, Discord user StakenS reuploaded a Frank Sinatra model, which was originally posted by another user.

“Reupload because I am not scared to go to jail,” they write, adding that the takedown request likely came from a Frank Sinatra rightsholder that doesn’t appreciate the AI model.

It’s easy to jump to conclusions based on this post, but it’s likely that this voice model, and others, were removed because they included links to full datasets. This is what AI Hub admin “.tea” believes is what happened.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, .tea notes that despite RIAA’s takedown letters, Discord didn’t reach out to the server’s operators directly.

“The admins were informed about [RIAA’s takedown letter], not through Discord though, we heard from the people who actually got the letter. Discord has not contacted us as of yet,” .tea says.

The admin hasn’t seen voice models being targeted in isolation either and believes that datasets with infringing tracks from RIAA members are the real problem. This content isn’t allowed on the AI Hub server, so the operators don’t mind seeing that removed.

As for the users who posted the content, there’s nothing to suggest that prison sentences are on the horizon. That being said, the RIAA did go to court a few days ago hoping to learn more about the alleged infringers.

DMCA Subpoena Targets AI Hub Users

At the federal court for the District of Columbia, the anti-piracy group obtained a DMCA subpoena that requires Discord to identify the alleged infringers. The subpoena was sent to Discord on June 14th with an accompanying letter.

“[Y]ou are required to disclose to the RIAA information sufficient to identify the infringers. This would include the individuals’ names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, payment information, account updates and account history, as available,” the letter reads.

Discord has until the end of the month to comply with the request, if it doesn’t formally oppose it.

In response to our questions, RIAA didn’t go into detail on the potential repercussions of this action. However, it stresses that AI itself isn’t the problem. Their enforcement efforts are focused on those who exploit the work of artists without consent.

“The creative community supports AI that is ethical, follows the law and respects creators’ rights. But when those who seek to profit from AI train their systems on unauthorized content, it undermines the entire music ecosystem – harming creators, fans, and responsible developers alike.”

“This action seeks to help ensure that lawless systems that exploit the life’s work of artists without consent cannot and do not become the future of AI,” the RIAA spokesperson added.

Meanwhile, the AI Hub server remains online. In a public announcement, the admins reiterated that uploading entire datasets containing copyrighted content directly to Discord is not allowed.

“Please do not upload datasets to the server or any copyrighted material. We have 0 tolerance for this kind of stuff”,” the announcement reads.

—-

A copy of all the documentation referenced in this post, which was obtained by TorrentFreak, is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.