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 was fed up with a bombardment of DMCA takedown requests and alleged defamatory claims. In response, he sued the RIAA , asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare his service non-infringing.

The RIAA and other music groups had been actively trying to remove so-called YouTube rippers from Google’s search results. The industry group had also prevailed in legal action against some of the sites but in its battle with Yout.com, the RIAA filed a motion to dismiss.

Last fall, the district court decided to dismiss the matter , handing a win to the RIAA. Judge Stefan Underhill ultimately concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. That rendered Yout’s defamation and business disparagement claims moot.

Yout.com Appeal

Yout’s operator did not give up on the case and opted to appeal in the belief that YouTube rippers do not violate the DMCA. The argument received backing from the EFF and GitHub in their supporting amicus briefs.

The RIAA filed a lengthy response concluding that Yout is an “illicit stream-ripping service” that effectively allows people to “bypass YouTube’s technological restrictions” that prevent downloading of works streamed through YouTube. As such, the service violates the DMCA, a position supported by the Copyright Alliance.

One of the key issues in this dispute is whether YouTube actually implemented technological measures designed to control access to copyrighted works. In Yout’s response to the RIAA filed this weekend, the focus returns to the same thorny topic.

Yout’s reply brief stresses that this case was dismissed prematurely, even before both parties were allowed to conduct discovery. That’s problematic, as the lawsuit deals with key questions relating to the DMCA, many of which remain unanswered.

The Elephant-Sized Hole

The stream-ripper points out that rightsholders haven’t implemented any copy protection measures themselves. The RIAA argues that YouTube has but according to Yout’s lawyer, it still isn’t clear whether YouTube’s technical hurdles were intended to act as copyright protection measures.

“[RIAA] attempts to argue not only that it is entitled to rely on technology that it claims to have been put in place by YouTube, but that it makes no difference at all whether YouTube intended for the technology to limit the access to or the ability to copy the videos that are freely available on YouTube to anyone with an internet connection and a browser.”

This leaves an elephant-sized hole in the room. While the case centers around YouTube’s alleged copyright protections, which are presumably vital to the music industry, YouTube itself is notably absent. It didn’t file an amicus brief to back up the RIAA’s position, for example.

” […] one might have assumed that YouTube itself would have appeared on Appellants behalf as an amicus. That it did not leaves an elephant sized hole in the room,” Yout argues.

Yout says the RIAA is attempting to cover this “enormous hole with fig leaves.” For example, the music group argues that the DMCA says nothing about the ‘intent’ of presumed protection measures, but Yout says that assertion is incorrect and defies common sense.

You’re So Vain…

Yout also points out that the RIAA mischaracterizes its service. The music group repeatedly stresses that the site’s only purpose is to infringe the copyrights of its members, which prompted an interesting response.

“To paraphrase one of the RIAA members’ recording artists: You’re so vain, I bet you think this software’s about you,” Yout’s lawyers write, inspired by the lyrics of Carly Simon.

In a footnote, the attorneys apologize for this reference, but their message is serious. Music only represents a small fraction of the content on YouTube, they note, adding that Yout itself is merely a dumb ‘recording’ tool.

“The service provided by Yout is content-neutral, providing nothing more than a recording device that utilizes the very information that is freely and publicly available to anyone who cares to look for it, without the need to circumvent any technological measures.

“To the extent that the RIAA thinks otherwise, it should have the opportunity to prove that theory… at a trial following discovery,” Yout’s lawyers write.

Dismissal Should be Reversed

The brief further argues that many of the legal findings cited in the RIAA’s answering brief come from cases that were properly litigated; not ones that were dismissed at an early stage.

The parties in these cases had the opportunity to build a proper record, with expert testimonies and witnesses. Considering the important issues at stake and the outstanding disputes, Yout believes it should be allowed to do the same.

Based on these and other arguments, Yout says the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case was premature and should be reversed.

—

A copy of Yout’s reply in response to RIAA’s answering brief, filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the second circuit, is available here (pdf)

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

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the availability of unlicensed music “remains an issue for the
whole music ecosystem.”

In its 2022 ‘Engaging With Music’ report, IFPI estimates that almost a third of people say they have used illegal or unlicensed methods to download and listen to music. The major threat in today’s market has been growing for many years, mainly because it’s so quick and easy.

What is Stream-Ripping and How Does it Work?

The official explanation from IFPI reads as follows: Stream ripping is the illegal practice of creating a downloadable file from content that is available to stream online. It is now the most prevalent form of online music copyright infringement.

While the industry group’s definition is broad enough to encompass all streaming services offering licensed content, a more specific description for the lion’s share of related piracy is carried out by people using YouTube-ripping tools.

These are available in software form for local use but the most simple and popular option is to visit a website set up for the job. Given their number and popularity, a basic Google search usually throws up plenty of options, but not always.

Legal Action

Users in some regions may find that their ISP blocks access to some YouTube-ripping platforms. This is the result of legal action taken by the major recording labels in several countries, where courts had to determine the legality of the platforms based on functionality, technical issues, conduct, and the likelihood that most visitors use them to infringe copyright.

Denmark was the first country in the world to declare stream-ripping illegal and currently blocks sites with flvto, ytmp3, yt1s y2mate, and savefrom branding, among others. Similar brands appear in legal documents relating to a High Court ruling in the UK .

The same is broadly true for blocking action in Australia while a more recent blocking injunction in India targets 18 sets of domains, with each set consisting of often multiple domains linked to the same platform or perceived ownership.

Small Domain Names, Extraordinary Traffic

Given that domain hopping and multiple domains pointing to the same infrastructure is common, traffic to sites can be more difficult to calculate than usual. YouTube-ripping site yt1s operates from several domains but on its own, the .com variant is good for 15 million visits per month. 15% of the site’s traffic comes from India, where it’s supposed to be blocked.

Y2mate is much, much bigger. Just one of its domains received more than 117 million visits last month. Another y2mate-branded domain receives almost 40% of its 3 million visits each month from India, where some y2mate domains are blocked – but not this one.

Another y2mate variant currently enjoying 22 million visits per month now gets 15% of its traffic from the UK where other rippers are blocked, but not this one.

Other ripping site brands, which in some cases are linked to other popular brands, also enjoy huge traffic. Savefrom, for example, which received 113 million visits last month alone. And then there’s this monster, a ripping platform that receives almost four times more visits than Fmovies, which in itself is no slouch at almost 92 million per month.

Traffic aside, the ssyoutube.com domain is interesting for other reasons too.

SSYoutube Evades Takedown Notices

While the music industry considers YouTube-ripping sites illegal, ssyoutube gets almost zero attention in Google’s Transparency Report due to its setup. The domain has been targeted in just seven requests with just eight of its URLs removed since 2018.

As the image above shows, ssyoutube has an aversion to visitors from the UK; it appears to deliberately block them. Y2mate took similar action in 2021 , possibly due to music industry legal pressure but nothing was confirmed officially in public.

While few regular DMCA notices target ssyoutube, the UK’s BPI has filed many DMCA anti-circumvention notices against the platform, including some that show links with savefrom, a platform mentioned earlier. But does any of this time, effort and money amount to any more than a sticking plaster?

So Who is To Blame and What Can Be Done?

The fact that the music industry has made virtually all of its content available at a fair price (or free) means that the ripping phenomenon cannot be attributed to the labels failing to read the market. Bluntly, it’s difficult to see what more could’ve been done.

This is also costing the labels a lot of money. In addition to effort already expended on general anti-piracy work such as DMCA notifications, per-country site-blocking injunctions are very expensive. When treading new ground on the circumvention issues surrounding YouTube-ripping platforms, even more so. But the legal costs don’t stop there.

Seemingly with no options left, the major labels are taking legal action against DNS providers like Quad9 and Cloudflare , insisting that somehow they’re to blame for extraordinary levels of piracy carried out by stream-ripping sites and their users.

A hosting provider in Germany also faces legal pressure for simply linking to youtube-dl, the software coincidentally used by many ripping sites today. Will pushing the blame onto yet another intermediary solve this problem?

So What About YouTube?

When huge ‘pirate’ platforms are discussed along with the legalities of stream-ripping and associated circumvention of technological measures, only rarely is YouTube suggested as a party to a widening conflict prepared to suck in any and all intermediaries.

If DNS providers or hosting companies “aren’t doing enough” to tackle piracy carried out by people they have nothing to do with, does that mean that YouTube is next? Despite all the talk about systems that “effectively control access” to a copyrighted work, YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ is by no means effective.

Pragmatically speaking, legal interpretations that attempt to redefine the original meaning of the word “effective” to mean something else under the DMCA, are all well and good, and may win a case here and there. But does wordplay stop people from ripping billions of tracks from YouTube and copying them to their machines?

It’s unlikely that the reasons for this current situation will find themselves aired in public but in effect – effectively – YouTube hosts almost every song in the world, on a platform that has no useful copy protection mechanism, and is actually licensed to do so.

A third of a billion visits to one site in one month is pretty wild, but nowhere near as wild as chasing down DNS providers and hosts while claiming they aren’t doing their bit to prevent piracy.

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

When the global music industry declared YouTube-ripping platforms public enemy number one and responsible for most music piracy online, the stage was set for legal showdowns.

Stream-ripping platform Yout took the initiative in 2020 by suing the RIAA, hoping that the court would declare its service non-infringing. The battle to convince the judge centered on YouTube’s ‘rolling cypher’ and whether it should (or should not) be considered a Technological Protection Measure (TPM).

Under the DMCA, unauthorized circumvention of a TPM amounts to copyright infringement, so it was up to Yout owner Johnathan Nader to satisfy the judge that his platform does not amount to a circumvention tool. In 2022, Judge Stefan Underhill concluded that since Yout’s evidence failed to meet that standard, the case would be dismissed and the RIAA would emerge on top.

Yout.com Takes Case to Appeal

Based on his firm belief that YouTube-ripping tools do not violate the DMCA, Nader took his case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. No stone was left unturned in his 92-page opening brief , with Nader claiming that the lower court’s dismissal was premature.

Arguing that the Yout platform amounts to a modern VCR with just as many non-infringing uses, once again Yout explained how anyone with a browser can download videos from YouTube for time-shifting purposes. The service doesn’t save any of that content on its own servers either, every decision lies with the user.

Yout’s arguments inevitably focused on YouTube’s ‘rolling cypher’ and its characterization as a technological protection measure. The RIAA’s position couldn’t be more clear but the system actually belongs to YouTube; did the company design the mechanism to limit copying? If not, that could put the RIAA’s claims in a different light, Yout informed the court.

RIAA Returns Fire

In an answering brief filed this week, the labels waste no time in drilling down to what they believe are the fundamental issues.

“This case involves Yout’s illicit stream-ripping service. YouTube provides users with streams of music videos, not free downloads. YouTube’s users can watch and listen to music videos for free on its ad-supported service, but those users do not get access to the digital files that contain the record companies’ valuable copyrighted works,” the brief begins.

“As its name suggests, Yout enables its users to gain unauthorized access to the digital music files from YouTube and download copies. The purpose of Yout is to bypass YouTube’s technological restrictions on accessing the digital copies of works streamed on YouTube.”

The RIAA claims that Yout’s users have no need to buy legal music subscriptions or visit ad-supported streaming services. Yout, meanwhile, “pays nothing to the owners of the copyrighted content that is plundered.”

RIAA: Courts Say Stream-Ripping Technology is Unlawful

Referencing the district court’s opinion, the RIAA describes it as “correct on all counts” and in line with findings by courts outside the U.S. that stream-ripping technology is unlawful. That leads directly back to the fundamental questions in the case on which the parties fundamentally disagree.

Does YouTube employ a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works? If the answer is yes, does the Yout service circumvent it?

These questions have been answered many times since this process began in 2020, with Yout insisting there is no TPM and the RIAA arguing the opposite. In the labels’ answer dated May 4, they cite Yout’s explanation of what happens on YouTube and its subsequent actions as a service.

“First, Yout alleges that YouTube employs a ‘signature mechanism’ that requires ‘read[ing] and interpret[ing]’ JavaScript to ‘derive[] a signature value’,” the RIAA says. “That is a description of an effective technological measure.

“Second, Yout alleges that its service uses a process for avoiding or bypassing this technological measure by, among other steps, ‘modif[ying]’ the range of numbers in the ‘signature value,’ and thereby gaining unauthorized access to the ‘download[able]’ ‘file[s]’ that comprise the music video.”

Music fans love to share mixtapes and have done so for decades but sharing these ‘tapes’ over the Internet is not without risk.

Popular hip-hop mixtape site and app Spinrilla has millions of users and is well aware of the pitfalls. In 2017, the company was sued by several RIAA-backed labels, including Sony, Warner, and UMG, which accused the company of massive copyright infringement.

“Spinrilla specializes in ripping off music creators by offering thousands of unlicensed sound recordings for free,” the RIAA commented at the time.

Spinrilla Fought Piracy Accusations

The hip-hop site countered the allegations by pointing out its RIAA-approved anti-piracy filter and highlighting how it actively worked with major record labels to promote their tracks . In addition, Spinrilla stressed that the DMCA’s safe harbor protects the company from liability.

As the case progressed both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The music companies requested rulings to establish that Spinrilla is liable for direct copyright infringement and that the DMCA safe harbor doesn’t apply. Spinrilla countered with cross-motions, filed under seal, in which they argued the opposite.

Court: Spinrilla is Liable

In December 2020, US District Court Judge Amy Totenberg ruled that Spinrilla is indeed liable for direct copyright infringement . In her ruling, Judge Totenberg concluded that 4,082 copyrighted sound recordings were streamed at least once through Sprinrilla’s website or app.

Without the DMCA’s safe harbor protection, Spinrilla faced a severe disadvantage in the event the case went to trial. With 4,082 copyrights at stake, potential damages would exceed $600 million if the jury found that the infringements were willful.

In recent weeks it looked like both parties were gearing up for a trial but, at the last minute, Spinrilla accepted a settlement and voluntarily submitted an “ offer of judgment ” to the court.

$50 Million + Shutdown

Spinrilla doesn’t go light on itself in the judgment offer. The mixtape service commits to paying $50 million in damages plus other fees to the music companies. That’s far less than the potential $600 million available at trial, but it’s still a massive figure for a piracy case.

The proposed judgment, signed by a clerk at a US District Court in Georgia yesterday, effectively ends the legal battle after more than six years.

“Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $50,000,000, inclusive of any recoverable costs and attorneys’ fees,” the judgment reads.

In addition to the piracy damages, Spinrilla will close its doors for good. That includes its hugely popular iOS and Android apps, which were downloaded millions of times.

To give an impression of its reach, the Android app has over 93,000 reviews and over 10 million downloads. The Apple store doesn’t share any download statistics but the Spinrilla app has 342,000 reviews on the platform.

Transfer Domain Name

The judgment prohibits Spinrilla and its founder Dylan Copeland from offering the service, and the Spinrilla site and apps are required to shut down within five days.

“[Defendants are restrained from] operating the Spinrilla Service or any other website, platform, system, or application that Defendants (or either of them) own or control, directly or indirectly, that is substantively similar to the Spinrilla Service,” the judgment reads.

“Defendants shall have five (5) days from notice of entry by the Court of this Offer of Judgment to come into compliance with the terms set forth in the preceding paragraph without being in violation of said judgment.”

At the time of writing the Spinrilla apps and website remain online but that is expected to change soon. As part of the judgment, the Spinrilla domain name will end up in the hands of the music companies.

“Defendants shall transfer the domain name https://spinrilla.com to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of the confidential Settlement Agreement and Release among the parties,” the judgment adds.

There is no mention of the judgment or the pending shutdown of Spinrilla on the official site but we expect confirmation to arrive fairly soon.

—

A copy of the judgment approved yesterday by US District Court Judge Amy Totenberg is available here (pdf)

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

More than a decade has passed since Kim Dotcom’s file-storage empire Megaupload collapsed after becoming the prime target in a high-profile law enforcement operation .

The U.S. Government booked an early result in 2015 when programmer Andrus Nomm was handed a one-year prison sentence following a plea deal .

The case lit up again last year when two of the three remaining defendants, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk, signed an agreement to be charged in New Zealand and avoid extradition to the United States. That left Kim Dotcom as the sole ‘active’ extradition candidate.

As Dotcom’s extradition battle continues, the U.S. Government’s criminal case has stalled along with a pair of civil lawsuits filed by the RIAA and MPA . These are not expected to begin until the criminal case is finalized, which could take a while.

MPA and RIAA Cases Postponed Again

Over the past several years, Megaupload has repeatedly asked the court to delay these lawsuits. This bi-annual postponement cycle began in 2014 and continued earlier this month.

“Defendant Megaupload hereby moves the Court to enter the attached proposed order, continuing the stay in this case for an additional six months, subject to the terms and conditions stated in the proposed order,” the requests note, adding there are no objections from the RIAA and MPA.

As expected, District Judge Anthony J. Trenga – who took over the Megaupload lawsuits after complaints about Judge Liam O’Grady’s alleged financial ties to Disney – swiftly signed off on the new six-month delays.

“[T]his matter be stayed until September 1, 2023, on the same terms and conditions as set forth in the Court’s original stay order,” the order reads.

Stricken From Active Docket

Interestingly, there is a notable difference compared to earlier orders. One day after extending the stay in both the RIAA and MPA lawsuits, the court struck both cases from the active docket, marking the lawsuits inactive instead.

“It appearing to the Court that this case has been stayed nearly continuously since June 10, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN from the active docket and placed on the inactive docket,” Judge Trenga writes.

Marking the case as inactive makes sense, as no progress is expected anytime soon. A decision on whether to extradite Kim Dotcom could take years and even if he was eventually sent to the United States, criminal proceedings could take another decade to complete.

There is one notable caveat. Kim Dotcom’s former business associates, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk, remain defendants in the civil lawsuits and pleaded guilty in the criminal matter. The Megaupload pair will be sentenced in New Zealand soon, but what that means for the civil cases in the U.S. isn’t immediately clear.

If there’s an indication that the civil cases can move forward, the lawsuits can be moved to the active docket again. For now, however, they remain in hibernation.

Dotcom, meanwhile, continues to build his online following , inserting himself into political, financial, and other global debates. When the need arises, he will likely turn his attention to the Megaupload battle again.

—

Copies of the orders to stay the civil cases are available here ( MPA / RIAA ). Judge Trenga ordered these cases to be stricken from the active record shortly after ( MPA / RIAA ).

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

Human beings have a tendency to want things they can’t have. A modest interest in a particular item or activity can inexplicably soar when it’s recognized as rare or unavailable. When strictly forbidden, even regular fruit can prove irresistible.

Spotify offers 100 million tracks to hear right now, including the vast majority of the greatest pieces of music ever written. Yet for some, the lure of an unreleased track can outweigh every single one of them; unattainable, forbidden and rare is a potent mix and may explain why pirates are paying silly money for leaked, pirated music.

Dozens of Avicii Leaks

When producer Tim Bergling passed away in 2018, the prospect of never hearing a new Avicii track was suddenly very real. Two albums and various tracks were eventually released, but then – PAB happened.

In 2022 the Public Avicii Buy Server (PAB) channel on Discord became a hot location for unreleased Avicii tracks. Faced with having to pay for them, fans worked to ‘groupbuy’ a long list of Avicii tracks including ‘Let’s Roll’ and ‘Lethal Drug V2’ which featured Chris Martin & SZA.

Sources Unknown But Some Files Were Apparently Stolen

How the music was obtained isn’t clear; some believed the PAB seller bought the tracks and then sold them to fellow Avicii fans at cost price. Others spoke of hacked accounts and big profits. Late 2022, after another ‘PAB’ release (‘Island’) appeared online , a Reddit user jumped in to comment

“Hey guys! My name is Jonas Wallin and my alias is The High,” the music producer posted on Reddit.

“I wrote Island and it’s coming out soon in fact. The leaked vocals are mine, my vocal stems. It’s the same with Loving Feeling. I would recommend you to not pay someone for these files since they were stolen from me. Thanks.”

RIAA Investigates Unreleased Sounds

According to various sources, the track made its way to PAB via a private leak site called Unreleased Sounds. It’s unclear whether the RIAA’s member labels have any interests in the dozens of Avicii tracks leaked so far, but they do want to know who runs the 15/16 month-old site.

Citing three previously leaked tracks – ‘Hot Saturn’ by Lil Nas X, ‘Rockstar Status’ by Juice WRLD, and PnB Rock’s ‘I Know They Mad’ — on March 13 the RIAA filed an application for a DMCA subpoena at a district court in Columbia, Washington.

“The purpose for which this subpoena is sought is to obtain the identities of the individuals assigned to these websites who have reproduced and have offered for distribution our members’ copyrighted sound recordings without their authorization,” the application reads.

In a letter to Cloudflare, the service targeted in the subpoena, the RIAA requests several pieces of information.

“As is stated in the attached subpoena, you 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 DMCA subpoena, which also references two additional platforms (NoTube.net and Aonode.com), has now been issued so it’s likely Cloudflare will hand over the information in the coming days, if it hasn’t already.

Unreleased Sounds

It’s not difficult to find reports of unreleased tracks being leaked by Unreleased Sounds. Operating from at least two domains – unreleasedsounds.gg and unreleased.gg – the platform became a members-only service last October, meaning that today’s prospective members need an invite code to sign up.

“Our website is now a closed/invite only marketplace,” the site’s operator wrote.

The screenshot above reveals Kanye West and Avicii as featured artists on Unreleased Sounds. While that doesn’t provide hard evidence that the platform was the source of previous Avicii leaks, comments from the site’s operator suggest that if fans have the money, more Avicii music is indeed available.

The DMCA subpoena also covers Aonode.com and NoTube.net, a stream-ripping platform with tens of millions of monthly visits.

DMCA Subpoenas and Links to Infringing Content

The RIAA previously sent DMCA takedown notices to Cloudflare asking for the allegedly infringing content to be removed. How Cloudflare responded to those notices is unclear but in one case, it may have been difficult to know exactly what to take down.

Unlike the URLs for the other sites, the three Unreleased Sounds links appear to be artist categories rather than links to specific content. Given the overall nature of the platform, that’s not particularly unreasonable, but it does raise the question of why the direct links were left out.

One possibility is that the links were external and carried the domain of a far less interesting hosting site. Another is that artist page URLs are much easier to guess from outside once the general format is known. But whatever the reason, RIAA subpoenas are relatively rare and being featured in one rarely ends well.

The RIAA’s DMCA subpoena application can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , pdf)

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

Last fall, several of the world’s largest music companies including Warner Bros. and Sony Music prevailed in their lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications.

The record labels accused the Astound-owned ISP of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the company failed to terminate repeat infringers.

The trial took more than two weeks to complete and ended in a resounding victory for the labels. A Texas federal jury found Grande guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement, and the ISP was ordered to pay $47 million in damages to the record labels.

U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra confirmed the judgment on January 31st, but the legal dispute is not over yet. Grande asked the court to either overrule the verdict or grant a new trial. If those options fail, the Internet provider plans to file an appeal.

Music Labels Want $12 Million Extra

While Grande is playing defense, the major music labels are taking a more offensive approach with demands for more compensation. In addition to the previously awarded $47 million in damages, they recently requested an additional $12.7 million in attorney fees, interest, and other costs.

Courts have the freedom to issue this type of compensation when warranted. The labels say this is a prime example of when such an award is appropriate.

In a detailed motion, the music companies explain that Grande was well aware of its misconduct. The company willingly ignored piracy notifications and stopped terminating subscribers based on these accusations, as was admitted at trial.

“[R]ather than acknowledge its wrongdoing and address its role in contributing to the widespread infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights, Grande litigated this case aggressively from start to finish.

“At trial, Grande still did not acknowledge any wrongdoing, but instead manufactured arguments about the reliability of the notices of infringement it received that were admittedly never asserted (or even considered) by Grande during the relevant time period.”

Flouting Of And Disdain For The Law

Grande has repeatedly argued that it didn’t act on the notices sent by tracking firm Rightscorp because it doubted their accuracy. The ISP was under the impression that it didn’t have to act on the notices and suggested that it would continue to ignore them if the jury agreed.

The labels say that Grande made no attempts to determine the accuracy of the notices before the ISP was taken to court. According to the music labels, the suggestion that the ISP might not have to act on piracy notices is illustrative of Grande’s “disdain” for the law.

“Most egregiously, Grande even argued to the jury that, if it were found not to be liable in this case, it would again ignore the infringing conduct of its subscribers,” the labels write.

The labels conclude that since Grande’s “intentional flouting of and disdain for the law” must be deterred, the additional $12.7 million in attorney fees, interest, and other costs is warranted.

Grande Responds

Grande opposed the request a few days ago. Calling on the court to deny the music companies any additional money, the ISP says that the statutory damages awarded by the jury already represent a windfall for the labels.

Grande believes the $47 million award is already more than any actual losses attributable to piracy activity.

“Plaintiffs have already obtained a recovery that far exceeds any reasonable estimation of actual harm they suffered — indeed, Plaintiffs never even attempted to prove the amount of any loss. Thus, there is no rationale supporting an additional monetary award,” Grande writes.

The ISP also rejects suggestions that it flouted the law or that its defense was unreasonable. On the contrary, whether the copyright notices sent by Rightscorp were sufficient to establish liability was a key question to be answered at trial.

Based on these and other arguments, Grande believes that the court should reject the labels’ motion for attorneys fees, interest, and additional costs.

Whatever the court decides, this case is far from over. And with dozens of millions at stake, both sides are expected to fight tooth and nail.

—

A copy of the music labels’ motion is available here (pdf) and Grande’s response can be found here (pdf)

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

Operating a mixtape site is not without risk. By definition, mixes include multiple sound recordings that are often protected by copyright.

Popular hip-hop mixtape site and app Spinrilla , which has millions of users, is well aware of these risks. In 2017, the company was sued by several record labels, backed by the RIAA, which accused the company of massive copyright infringement.

“Spinrilla specializes in ripping off music creators by offering thousands of unlicensed sound recordings for free,” the RIAA commented at the time.

Spinrilla Fought Piracy Accusations

The hip-hop site countered the allegations by pointing out that it had installed an RIAA-approved anti-piracy filter and actively worked with major record labels to promote their tracks . In addition, Spinrilla stressed that the DMCA’s safe harbor provision protects the company.

As the case progressed, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The music companies requested rulings to establish, before trial, that Spinrilla is liable for direct copyright infringement and that the DMCA safe harbor doesn’t apply.

Spinrilla countered with cross-motions, filed under seal, in which they argued the opposite. Judge Amy Totenberg eventually sided with the record labels in 2020, concluding that the mixtape site is indeed liable.

Millions in Potential Damages

In her ruling, Judge Totenberg concluded that 4,082 copyrighted sound recordings were streamed, at least once, through Sprinrilla’s website or app.

The scale of the damages will be decided at trial and after several delays, the jury is currently set to gather in a few weeks. With thousands of copyrights at stake, damages could potentially exceed $600 million if the jury finds that the infringement was willful.

With the stakes this high, both sides will do their best to present their most favorable arguments. That also means efforts to prevent witnesses, evidence, and even specific words being presented to the court.

These requests come in the form of ‘motions in limine’ where the parties ask the court to keep certain information from the jury. Several of these motions were submitted to court over the past few days.

Piracy and Theft

According to recent filings, Spinrilla is particularly concerned over potential piracy stigma. The company notes that the music industry has spent years painting a picture of being under siege by “pirates,” “thieves” and “trespassers”.

This type of rhetoric might make the jury more likely to see Spinrilla’s activities as willful, which could increase the damages award. This should be prevented by banning these disparaging terms at trial, the platform says.

“Defendants anticipate that Plaintiffs will continue to refer to piracy and pirates so that the jury will be predisposed to find the Defendants acted willfully,” Spinrilla writes.

“These terms are not evidentiary, have no probative value, and are highly inflammatory such that they will create undue prejudice. Accordingly, the Court should bar Plaintiffs from referring to Defendants as ‘pirates’ or having engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft’ other similarly disparaging words.”

‘Piracy History is Irrelevant’

In a separate motion, Spinrilla asks the court to bar the music companies from discussing the history of online piracy. Piracy may have hurt the music industry’s revenues over the years but that shouldn’t impact an appropriate award for damages, the mixtape service says.

“Spinrilla is not liable for the entirety of online piracy that started with Napster. Nor can Spinrilla be required to pay statutory damages that are calculated based on the injury to record labels by companies that operated years before Spinrilla was formed.”

According to Spinrilla, the music companies want to discuss historical piracy issues because that would increase the chances of a higher award for damages.

“The evidence is not tethered to the facts of this case. Rather, it is designed to brand into the brains of the jurors, that Defendants should be punished for the cumulative effects of infringement that Defendants had no hand in creating,” Spinrilla argues.

Record Labels Want Financials Excluded

The above is just a selection of the motions submitted by Spinrilla. At the same time, the music companies are fighting equally hard for the court to keep specific information from the jury.

According to one of the filings, Spinrilla included over 2,000 pages of consolidated financial reports for Universal Music Group, Sony Corporation, and Warner Music Group, the plaintiffs’ parent corporations.

These financial documents are misleading, according to the music companies, as they also include revenue from entirely unrelated businesses such as semiconductors, batteries, and film revenues.

The plaintiffs believe that this information could be used to create a misleading and prejudicial impression of their financial resources, which has no relevance to the damages calculation.

“Overwhelming the jury with voluminous combined financial statements of Plaintiffs’ parent corporations would confuse the jury, who would be left to wonder about the relevance of this information in calculating the amount of statutory damages they should award.

“The simple and undeniable fact is that this information has absolutely no relevance to that calculation,” the music companies add.

All in all, it is clear that both sides are trying to establish the best possible base before presenting their arguments to the jury. At the time of writing the court has yet to rule on these motions ahead of a trial scheduled to start next month.

—

Spinrilla’s cited motions in limine are available here ( 1 , 2 pdf) and the music companyies’ motion can be found here (pdf)

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

YouTube’s terms and service prohibit users from downloading audio and video, but there are numerous ‘stream-ripping’ sites available on the web that do just that.

These services are a thorn in the side of recording labels which consider them a major piracy threat. Some operators of these stream-ripping tools disagree, pointing at the variety of legal use cases instead.

At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest stream-rippers took matters into his own hands. Instead of hiding in the shadows like some competitors, Yout.com owner Johnathan Nader sued the RIAA , asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare his service non-infringing.

Last fall, the district court decided to dismiss the matter, handing a win to the RIAA. Judge Stefan Underhill ultimately concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. This also rendered the associated defamation and business disparagement claims moot.

Yout.com Opens Appeal

Yout did not give up on the case. Site operator Johnathan Nader opted to appeal the case as he believes that YouTube rippers don’t violate the DMCA. After the RIAA’s request for legal fees was denied , Yout’s attorneys filed their opening brief yesterday at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The appeal begins by pointing out that the case deals with novel issues regarding the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. One of the key questions is whether YouTube videos have effective technological measures that aim to prevent the public from accessing copyrighted works.

Arguing that there is no DRM or encryption protecting the videos, Yout says that’s not the case here.

“Neither YouTube nor the Defendants employ any form of Digital Rights Management or encryption, the inclusion of which would eliminate the ability of the Yout software to allow Yout’s users to make copies of the works.

“Indeed, not only is there a lack of protection against such copying, the process can be accomplished by anyone with a web browser without the need for Yout’s services,” the opening brief adds.

The RIAA nonetheless asked Google to remove Yout.com URLs from its search engine, which it did. As a result, Yout’s traffic numbers dropped and similar takedown notices allegedly resulted in a PayPal ban too.

“Defendants improperly sent anti-circumvention notices to Google with the intent that Google would ‘delist’ Yout’s software platform, rendering it undiscoverable for the majority of Internet users seeking such services, which is precisely what occurred to Yout’s detriment.”

The 92-page appeal brief lists a myriad of issues and open questions, which suggest that the case warrants an in-depth proceeding. The lower court’s dismissal was premature, Yout’s attorneys argue, adding that the service is analogous to a VCR and has significant non-infringing uses.

The brief illustrates, through detailed descriptions accompanied by screenshots, that anyone can download video and audio from YouTube. The process doesn’t require any software other than a regular web browser.

Downloading Taylor Swift

The example used the music video of Taylor Swift’s “The Lakes” but the same process applies to all YouTube videos. Through this process the audio and video files are separate, but there are free tools to combine the two.

“A visitor can use Yout to save a personal recording on their personal computer for later viewing when not connected to the Internet. In essence, Yout allows a user to ‘time shift’ content. Yout never saves or retains its visitors’ time-shifted content on its own servers,” the attorneys write.

The fact that Yout’s attorneys are using a video from one of the biggest artists in the world shows that potential copyright sensitivities are not being evaded.

Instead, Yout explains that its service simply automates the ‘ripping’ process, without storing any content on its own servers. While rightsholders are clearly against this, the attorneys argue that there is no “circumvention” of a technological measure that prevents either access or copying.

YouTube does employ a JavaScript-based ‘rolling cipher’ to make it harder to download content directly. However, Yout doesn’t believe that this is an effective technological measure. In addition, it’s not clear whether YouTube implemented this code to prevent copying.

Copyright Protection or Bot Prevention?

The RIAA sees the rolling cipher as a form of DRM but the music group didn’t put the code there. YouTube has not been heard in the case but the video platform may have added the code to deter bots from generating fake views to generate income.

“There is no evidence […] that YouTube intended this to be a ‘technological measure’ designed to limit access or copying at all. And, if the technology was not designed or intended to limit or accessing copying, the Defendants cannot claim retroactively that such a technological measure exists by happenstance.”

The appellant doesn’t deny that the rolling cipher was introduced to make it harder to download videos but only YouTube itself can provide the answer.

“YouTube is not a party here and the Defendants can no better speak to YouTube’s intentions than Yout can,” the attorneys write.

Free Access

All in all, it’s clear that YouTube’s videos are not behind a paywall. They are publicly available to anyone with access to a web browser and the Internet. In fact, allowing access to videos is the main purpose of the site.

“Indeed, it is clear from YouTube’s Terms of Service – which the District Court took judicial notice of – that, by providing their videos to Youtube – the Defendants explicitly agreed that Youtube’s visitors were permitted access to the works , the brief reads (emphasis original).

Making copies of audio and video is an entirely different thing, of course. However, Yout argues that since users have access to the files, without any meaningful technological protection measures, there’s no DMCA violation.

The full arguments are much more detailed than we can summarize here. This is just the start of the appeal and certainly not the last time these issues will be raised.

No date has been set for RIAA’s response, which will likely follow in a few months. In addition, there may be several amicus briefs from interested parties as well, given the gravity of the case.

—

A copy of Yout’s full opening brief, filed as the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is available here (pdf)

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