Judge Rejects Key Universal Music Argument In Legal Fight With Grooveshark

from the overreach... dept

Two and a half years ago, Universal Music (UMG) sued Grooveshark (or, really, its parent company Escape Media). The case has had a few twists and turns since then, but the judge has issued a ruling (embedded below) that is pretty clear in suggesting that Universal Music's key argument -- the the DMCA does not apply to pre-1972 songs -- was a massive overreach, and the court will not accept it. Separately, the court flat-out rejected UMG's attempts to have Grooveshark's counterclaims of tortious interference dismissed. There's no way to look at this other than a pretty big win for Grooveshark and a big loss for Universal, though the case is far from over.

On the key point, Grooveshark has long argued that what it does is really no different than what YouTube does, in that it allows individuals to upload content, and if it receives a takedown notice, it proactively follows the DMCA's takedown process and removes that content. Realizing that getting around the DMCA's safe harbors was a longshot, Universal Music instead reverted to a somewhat twisted argument, saying that pre-1972 sound recordings are not covered by the DMCA, and thus there are no safe harbor protections. To understand why they'd make this argument, you can read up on the history of pre-1972 copyrights for sound recordings -- a huge mess that the US Copyright Office is still trying to figure out how to fix. But, the short version is that, currently, sound recordings from before 1972 are not technically under US federal copyright law, but various (and often crazy) state laws. Since the DMCA refers to works under federal copyright law, Universal Music's arguments is that the DMCA doesn't apply, thus the safe harbors don't apply, and Grooveshark can't rely on its safe harbor compliance to avoid liability.

If this argument sounds somewhat familiar, that's because it's the same one EMI tried to use against MP3Tunes, which failed spectacularly. The NY state court in this case appears to be well aware of that, citing the MP3Tunes case at length.

An internet service provider which seeks to benefit from the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA is required, as a condition of receiving such protection, "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity." .... Certainly the thrust of the DMCA is to relieve internet service providers of the initial need to ascertain the copyright status of the sound recordings that they make available, to place the burden of asserting copyright ownership on the owners of such copyrights, and to require the internet service providers to "take down" infringing material, upon receipt of a valid notice of infringement. There is no textual, or other reason, to think that Congress intended to limit that distribution of responsibilities to only post-1972 recordings.

Moreover, the phrase "copyright owners,".... is applicable to the owner of a common law copyright, no less than to the owner of a copyright under the Copyright Act....

End result? Sorry, UMG, but you can't just use this loophole to get around the clear and stated purpose of the DMCA's safe harbors.

This Court is not attempting to extend the Copyright Act to pre-1972 Recordings, but, nonetheless, does find, based on the relevant language of the statutes and the analysis discuss above, that the safe harbor provision codified by section 512(c)(1) of the DMCA is applicable to Pre-1972 Recordings.

That shoots a pretty big hole in UMG's case, as it's now going to have to show that Grooveshark's activities cause them to lose DMCA safe harbors, which is a much bigger hill to climb.

Separately, UMG failed in trying to get various counterclaims dismissed. The focus here was on claims that UMG contacted two companies -- HP and INgrooves -- to get them to back out of deals with Grooveshark. There are a bunch of different arguments (most pretty technical) that UMG makes to assert that these counterclaims should be dismissed, but the court isn't buying most of them. For each precedent UMG brings up, the court highlights that the facts are different here and UMG's reliance on particular caselaw "is misplaced."

UMG had a couple of relatively minor victories: having one of the counterclaims dismissed (one having to do with antitrust activity, because Grooveshark only showed harm to itself, rather than competition in general) and also a rejection of an attempt to use Section 230 safe harbors, which explicitly carve out intellectual property. Grooveshark/Escape Media tried a rather convoluted argument (sort of the reverse of UMG's pre-1972 DMCA argument, claiming that Section 230 safe harbors could apply to works covered under state copyright law). The court rejects this as silly, but it's effectively meaningless since it still grants the DMCA's safe harbors (which, admittedly are not quite as strong as the Section 230 safe harbors, but this is definitely the more reasonable result).

All in all, there's still a long way to go in this case, but today's ruling is clearly a pretty big loss for UMG and a win for Grooveshark.

Filed Under: common law copyright, copyright act, dmca, safe harbors
Companies: escape media, grooveshark, hp, ingrooves, universal music

Judge In Grooveshark Lawsuit Orders Blog To 'Preserve' Logs That Had Already Been Deleted

from the dangerous-ruling dept

Earlier this month, we noted a problematic attempt by Grooveshark's parent company, Escape Media, to subpoena information on an anonymous commenter on the blog site Digital Music News. As we noted at the time, Universal Music had referenced that comment in its lawsuit against Grooveshark. It seemed bizarre to reference an anonymous comment, especially one that seemed like pure hearsay (it made claims about things Grooveshark employees had done). In the lawsuit between UMG and Grooveshark it seemed completely pointless (and, indeed, Grooveshark has been arguing as much in that particular lawsuit). Yet, at the same time, Grooveshark subpoenaed DMN in an attempt to find out who posted that comment. DMN resisted the subpoena, noting that it discards and overwrites its log files every few days anyway, and these files had been long gone already. It also pointed to California's shield law for journalists and the basic First Amendment protections for anonymous speech.

Unfortunately, the judge has ruled against Digital Music News, and ordered it to produce the information. The judge has indicated that he will not require this information during the appeal that DMN's lawyer indicated they would file... but did require "preservation" of the evidence during that time. Beyond the shield law and First Amendment issues raised here (we'll get to those), this raises a very, very troubling proposition for any website that regularly overwrites its log files. Escape Media had argued that even if DMN overwrote the log files, it should be required to hand over the information on the subpoena just in case the overwritten data was still available and could be recovered.

So, what do you do in this situation? Under the judge's order to "preserve" data that has already been deleted, what is a site to do? Do they have to immediately stop using their existing hardware and set up an entire clone -- hanging onto all of the original hardware for who knows how long, just in case a forensics expert can find a tiny piece of (useless for this case anyway) data that has been overwritten probably a hundred times already? That seems crazy. Paul Levy, from Public Citizen, who is representing DMN on this issue, highlighted many of the issues in his blog post about this:

The imposition of data preservation requirements on a journalist who is not a party to the litigation raises questions apart from the merits of the order. Journalists need to be able to discard data when they no longer have any of their own use for it.  Yes, “the public has a claim to every man’s evidence,” but don’t members of the public who are not involved in litigation have the right to discard information despite the fact that it might turn out to be useful evidence for somebody else’s case?  Does the public have a claim to heroic efforts on every man’s part?  Shouldn’t there be higher standards for subpoenas demanding intrusive searches for discarded data in the hands of third parties?

The problem is compounded when it is a journalist that has been subpoenaed.  To what extent does society have any entitlement to make journalists in particular take heroic measures, such as searching the nooks and crannies of their computer equipment for fragments of discarded data?  The judge was sensitive to the fact that our client here is a journalist, telling Escape Media that he was not prepared to allow it to make any general search of Digital Music News’ computers.  But an issue that we may have to pursue on appeal is whether a journalist should ever have to undertake such drastic preservation efforts in aid of a lawsuit in which he is not involved, particularly given the relative unlikelihood that fragments of identifying data remain on his computers somewhere.

Indeed, the problem is broader than just journalists.  Companies often keep log files with respect to server visits (and hosted comments), but there is little business justification for keeping those logs forever; so generally speaking they are discarded after a period of time (EFF's best practices recommendations are worth a look in this regard).  Does the mere act of discarding log files set a company up for the possibility of a demand for forensic examination of the underlying servers, in the hope that some fragment of the data might be recovered?  In this regard, the trial court's order has chilling implications for other California companies, even beyond the issue of journalists. 

Issues of how to preserve the data remain to be decided.  This is not like just leaving one of your file cabinets untouched for a period of time; it is not even as easy as making sure you don't delete any of your email.  Preserving the web site while creating a copy of the underlying servers is a complicated process, requiring the services of a forensic specialist, and the cost could be substantial.  The estimates that we have been given are well into the five figures; but even the cost of several thousand dollars would be an enormous imposition on this small company.

It really is quite a difficult issue, and if the ruling stands, could become a massive headache for any company in California.

Separately, we should not ignore the First Amendment and shield law issues. DMN is not a party in this case, and it's not even clear why this information is needed. Escape/Grooveshark can and should point out that the information contained in the comment is pure hearsay so it shouldn't have to deal with it in the original case. The company has not filed a defamation claim against the commenter and does not appear to have met the high bar required to unveil an anonymous commenter anyway. This is a pretty big concern for any journalist or blogger out there. Being dragged into a third party dispute because someone comments on your site can represent a pretty big problem for a lot of smaller sites.

While Grooveshark's legal fight against the major labels certainly raises some interesting copyright questions, it's disappointing to see them going down this path and potentially creating serious problems not just for Digital Music News, but tons of journalists and websites.

Filed Under: anonymous speech, evidence, first amendment, log files, subpoena
Companies: digital music news, grooveshark, universal music

Grooveshark Tries To Force Digital Music News To Unveil Commenter, Ignoring First Amendment

from the unfortunate dept

We've covered parts of the various lawsuits against Grooveshark by the recording industry. I have no idea how those lawsuits are going to turn out, but a bit of a sideshow in one is touching on issues that are extremely important around here: the right to protect anonymous commenters, and shield laws protecting journalistic sources. Last fall, in the latest effort by Universal Music against Grooveshark, the company quoted an anonymous comment from a blog post on the popular music industry blog, Digital Music News. The comment claimed to be from an employee at Grooveshark, and reads (in part):

I work for Grooveshark. Here is some information from the trenches:

We are assigned a predetermined ammount of weekly uploads to the system and get a small extra bonus if we manage to go above that (not easy).The assignments are assumed as direct orders from the top to the bottom, we don't just volunteer to "enhance" the Grooveshark database.

All search results are monitored and when something is tagged as "not available", it get's queued up to our lists for upload. You have to visualize the database in two general sections: "known" stuff and "undiscovered/indie/underground". The "known" stuff is taken care internally by uploads. Only for the "undiscovered" stuff are the users involved as explained in some posts above. Practically speaking, there is not much need for users to upload a major label album since we already take care of this on a daily basis.

To be honest, when I saw the original filing mentioning this comment, I was pretty surprised that Universal would use it in the lawsuit. After all, it's an anonymous comment on a blog. It's pure hearsay, without any actual evidence that the commenter actually works at Grooveshark. It's completely useless as evidence.

Of course, you might think that Universal Music would then issue a subpoena to discover who the commenter was. But... instead Grooveshark issued a subpoena (pdf and embedded below) seeking to identify the commenter. This is also strange. If UMG was able to identify the individual, then Grooveshark would find out that info. But if (as appears to be the case so far) UMG does nothing, the claims by this individual are useless in the lawsuit anyway.

Either way, Paul Resnikoff from Digital Music News worried about the subpoena, as DMN has a policy of not revealing its anonymous commenters (and often using them as sources). So, he decided to push back, noting a few key points. Public Citizen's Paul Levy recently agreed to represent Resnikoff in this matter and sent a letter to Grooveshark's parent company (embedded below) detailing why Grooveshark should stop barking up this particular tree. Beyond the First Amendment issues, the right of a journalist to protect sources, and the uselessness of the original comment in the first place, there's also the simple fact that DMN doesn't retain comment logs for very long, and has no useful information in response to the subpoena anyway.

That letter also highlights that Grooveshark is also interested in a much more recent comment on a blog post about Grooveshark's subpoena, in which a commenter (in a rather difficult to read manner) spins another conspiracy theory, suggesting that the original comment was a setup against Grooveshark by supporters of the lawsuit. To be honest, this comment seems about as credible as the original comment that kicked this off.

Whatever you might think of the Grooveshark lawsuit, this action by Grooveshark's lawyers seems like a mistake and overkill. Not only is it unlikely to turn up anything useful, going on a fishing expedition against anonymous commenters on a blog opens up a huge host of problems around First Amendment issues, which it appears Grooveshark either failed to consider, or doesn't much care about. That seems like a mistake.

Filed Under: anonymous comments, digital music news, subpoena
Companies: grooveshark, universal music

The Future Under SOPA: Group Too Lazy To Police Own Copyrights Seeks To Block Access To Grooveshark's Legal Music Service

from the how-censorship-works dept

Want just a glimpse of the future under SOPA, should that bill pass? Over in Denmark, where the local anti-piracy agency Antipiratgruppen has been successful in getting courts to order ISPs to block access to sites like The Pirate Bay, it appears the group is now targeting Grooveshark for a similar blockade. Of course, Grooveshark functions no different than YouTube functions. It obeys the DMCA and takes down content when requested. Users do upload their own music, just as they do on YouTube, and Grooveshark has done some additional licensing deals -- such as with EMI. But apparently, rather than deal with the actual law, the group in Denmark just wants Grooveshark added to the country's blacklist. Apparently, the fact that there's tons of legal music on the site is meaningless, just so long as one group declares that the site is dedicated to infringement. That, of course, is exactly what SOPA will allow as well. Make an accusation and you can totally shut down a competitive startup. In fact, some have responded to this lawsuit by noting that it came after competitor Spotify (which is owned, in part, by the labels) entered the market, suggesting that the timing of the attempted blockade is no surprise, and that's it's really more about clearing the decks for the RIAA's own offering.

Filed Under: blocking, copyright, denmark, websites
Companies: antipiratgruppen, grooveshark

Lawsuits Against Grooveshark Continue; Music Publishers Seek To Redefine The DMCA

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

Grooveshark has been involved in a series of lawsuits from the recording industry and, as with the Limewire lawsuits, it looks like the music publishers are piggybacking on the labels by suing later. We've already explained why Grooveshark appears to follow the rules set out by the DMCA, but I would imagine that Grooveshark is the sort of site where judges simply won't like the idea of it, and will thus figure out a way to rule against it. That could be very problematic.

To make their case, the publishers are trying to claim that Grooveshark is not a service provider for the purpose of the DMCA. It's going to be difficult to have that claim stick, as courts have generally (correctly, in our opinion) deemed a wide spectrum of offerings to meet the "service provider" hurdle. And then the lawsuit gets even sillier. It claims that Grooveshark itself is doing everything that its users are actually doing. It's as if the publishers wish to simply pretend that the DMCA doesn't exist and that liability automatically applies to the service provider.

I think it's difficult for anyone to argue that Grooveshark is any different technically from YouTube, but when it comes to these sorts of things the industry isn't known for actually understanding what these offerings are really about, preferring instead to leap straight to the freak-out-that-must-be-illegal stage...

Filed Under: dmca, innovation, lawsuits, music, publishers
Companies: grooveshark

Grooveshark Insists It's Legal; Points Out That Using DMCA Safe Harbors Is Not Illegal

from the good-point dept

If you talk to folks in the recording industry, they seem to insist that Grooveshark is absolutely illegal. However, the company has structured itself in a way that it believes is perfectly legal -- which is why it's now upset that Google and Apple have each pulled its mobile app from their marketplaces and has issued an open letter, explaining why it's legal and asking Google and Apple to let it back into their app stores.

First, the company makes the distinction between "licensed" and "legal":

First, there is a distinction between legal and licensed. Laws come from Congress. Licenses come from businesses. Grooveshark is completely legal because we comply with the laws passed by Congress, but we are not licensed by every label (yet). We are a technology company, and we operate within the boundaries of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Some would have you believe that those of us who use the DMCA to innovate are inherently infringers and that claiming Safe Harbor under the DMCA is as good as admitting guilt. Not so.

The DMCA's Safe Harbor component encourages technology companies to innovate in hopes that they will eventually solve some of the problems that are plaguing content producers today. The Safe Harbor provision reads like it was written specifically for YouTube and Grooveshark, and its necessity continues to be illustrated every day. If it weren't for this notion, many of the products and services that are now taking a bite out of piracy would never have been born.

While I agree with the importance of the DMCA's safe harbors, and the idea that they are important to encourage innovation, Grooveshark is being a little misleading in the whole licensed/legal arena. It really should go into more detail. The way Grooveshark operates, is that (like YouTube), users upload content, which others can then stream. Grooveshark works to abide by the DMCA to discourage and takedown infringing material -- and notes that it has taken down 1.76 million tracks and suspended 22,274 users who abused the system. As it notes, those are "not the characteristics of a company 'dedicated to copyright infringement.'" It also pays performance rights organizations for the streaming content.

The real issue is whether or not the users have the rights to upload the works. That's where the licensing aspect comes in. Grooveshark has been trying for a while now to get record labels to agree to effectively offer a blanket license to its users, so that they can upload those songs, and the labels can then make some money off of the usage as well. In some ways, it's like YouTube's ContentID system, in helping labels monetize their music that users are hoping to share. Both EMI and Universal Music have sued Grooveshark, with EMI dismissing the case after agreeing to a license. Universal Music is still fighting the lawsuit.

So, effectively, the way Grooveshark is structured today is that its users might infringe on copyrights, and the company keeps seeking licenses that would make those uses authorized. The somewhat open legal question is whether or not Grooveshark itself is liable as well. It claims that it follows the DMCA safe harbors and is protected (and, for that reason, I'm sure is very, very, very interested in the eventual outcome of the YouTube/Viacom lawsuit concerning the overall contours of the DMCA safe harbors). The labels, I'm sure, claim that Grooveshark is "inducing" infringement through its overall design.

Not surprisingly, I think Grooveshark presents an interesting legal situation, which should be legal under the DMCA. Unfortunately, the courts often get a little wacky when it comes to interpreting the law in these situations. If YouTube continues to prevail over Viacom, Grooveshark is in a much stronger legal position. If the appeals court reverses, however, it may have more trouble. Of course, given all this, it is somewhat amusing that Google would dump Grooveshark, suggesting a violation of its terms of service. If Google is arguing that YouTube is legal, you would think it would recognize that Grooveshark relies on the very same line of legal logic.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, legality, licensing, safe harbors
Companies: grooveshark, youtube

Grooveshark Wants To Judge Your Soul

from the judgement-day dept

Dante Cullari made an observation on the Music Think Tank Open blog last month that seems to have gone unnoticed: Grooveshark's privacy policy has a "soul" clause. Unlike other "immortal soul" clauses, I don't think Grooveshark's is intentional.

"This [personally identifiable] information may also be kept longer than 6 months by EMG if a user is found by EMG's soul judgment to be suspect of carrying out illegal, unlawful, or dangerous actions with or in this service. Prior to keeping IP address information for more than 6 months, the user will be notified via email about their suspect status."

The privacy policy still says that, though Dante also grabbed a screenshot.

Somehow, I don't think Grooveshark actually intends to judge a person's immaterial soul for evidence of suspicious activity. But, lest you think it's a lone typo, the phrase "soul purpose" also appears later in the policy.

"EMG may allow 3d parties to place cookies and other tracking technologies, such as web beacons, clear GIFs, web bugs, tracking pixels on the Site for the soul purpose of allowing that 3d party to record that a User has visited the Site and/or used the Service."

I think they meant "sole." Somewhere, in the depths of my own soul, it feels like somebody was relying on spell check a bit too much...

Filed Under: souls, typos
Companies: grooveshark

Grooveshark Sued Again... Negotiating Via Lawsuit Continues

from the and-so-it-goes dept

We've discussed in the past how the record labels have this habit of "negotiating through lawsuits," in that they will often sue an innovative music startup, even as they're negotiating licensing deals with them, just to get the upperhand in the negotiation. It's happened with countless music startups -- and it's one of the main reasons so few survive. They're overly burdened with ridiculous costs from the beginning. We already saw that EMI used this strategy with Grooveshark, in forcing it into a licensing deal, and apparently Universal Music decided it could do the same thing. It's now suing Grooveshark as well -- even though Grooveshark insists it pays all the appropriate licenses. Of course, the end result of all this is that it gives Grooveshark more publicity, but may make it more difficult for the company to survive.

Filed Under: lawsuits, negotiation
Companies: emi, grooveshark, universal music

Negotiating Through Lawsuit Continues: EMI Drops Lawsuit, Signs Deal With Grooveshark

from the all-in-the-negotiation dept

We've noticed a troubling trend in how legitimate online music services are being pressured into deals with the major record labels. The labels begin the negotiations on licenses... and then sue the company. That, of course, makes life difficult for the startup, which is then pressured to offer even better (read: ridiculously onerous) terms to the labels. We've seen it happen over and over again, and saw it happening when EMI sued Grooveshark this past summer. And, of course, a few months later, the lawsuit is dropped and a licensing deal has been reached, though you can bet the terms are not quite what Grooveshark originally intended. That's what happens when part of the "negotiation" involves a lawsuit.

Filed Under: lawsuits, negotiation
Companies: emi, grooveshark