Legal News
Page: 60
Two men who claim Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children can pursue their lawsuits against companies that were owned by the late singer, a California appeals court ruled Friday (Aug. 18).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Wade Robson and James Safechuck filed their cases a decade ago, claiming that Jackson’s companies (MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc.) had a legal duty to protect them from the singer’s alleged abuse.
But Jackson’s companies argued — and a lower court agreed — that they had no such obligation to Robson and Safechuck since Jackson was the sole owner of the companies and they thus lacked the power to control him.
On Friday, the California Court of Appeal for Second District overturned that decision — ruling that the corporate structure did not automatically shield the companies from liability.
“We conclude a corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse,” the court wrote.
“The corporations say these are ‘idiosyncratic circumstances,’ and perhaps they are. There is certainly no comparable case law to recite,” the court wrote. “But it would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder.”
In a statement, Jonathan Steinsapir, lead counsel for MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., said he and his clients were “disappointed” by the decision.
“We remain fully confident that Michael is innocent of these allegations, which are contrary to all credible evidence and independent corroboration, and which were only first made years after Michael’s death by men motivated solely by money,” Steinsapir said. “We trust that the truth will ultimately prevail with Michael’s vindication yet again. Michael Jackson himself said, ‘Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons.’
Vince Finaldi, an attorney for Robson and Safechuck, said he and his clients were “pleased but not surprised” that the court had chosen to overturn “incorrect rulings in these cases, which were against California law and would have set a dangerous precedent that endangered children throughout state and country. We eagerly look forward to a trial on the merits.”
Robson’s and Safechuck’s allegations were detailed in the 2019 HBO documentary Leaving Neverland. Safechuck claims that Jackson abused him “hundreds of times in various locations”; Robson says Jackson began molesting him in 1990, when he was seven, and continued to do so until he was 14.
Robson sued in May 2013, at the age of 30, and Safechuck followed suit a year later when he was 36. The pair argued that Jackson’s companies were negligent in failing to stop the alleged abuse, calling them “conspirators, collaborators, facilitators and alter egos” that were “specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims.”
In 2020, a trial court dismissed those claims, ruling that Jackson had “absolute legal control over the entities and everyone employed by them,” meaning those companies and their staffers had “no ability to control Jackson regarding his alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff.”
But in Friday’s decision reversing that ruling, the appeals court said Jackson’s companies were not as powerless as they had been made out to be.
“Any director, employee or other agent of defendants who knew of or suspected abuse could have done something to protect plaintiffs’ welfare: issued warnings, gone to police, confronted Jackson,” the court wrote. “Yes, the likely consequence of protecting plaintiffs would have been termination of employment or removal from the board of directors. But a director or employee’s risk of removal or termination if they acted to protect plaintiffs does not mean they could not act.”
Friday’s ruling revived Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits, but it does not mean they have won the cases. The disputes will now return to a lower court for more litigation and an eventual trial, where the pair will need to prove their allegations against MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc.
Read the entire opinion here:
Webster “Yenddi” Batista Fernandez, one of the leaders of the largest-known YouTube music royalty scam in history, was sentenced to nearly four years in prison on Tuesday (Aug. 15). The court documents were made publicly available on Friday.
According to court documents, Batista is ordered to serve 46 months in prison for one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. Upon his release from prison, he will be placed on supervised release for 36 months.
From about 2016-2021, Batista and his partner, Jose “Chenel” Teran, ran MediaMuv, a music company that claimed ownership of and collected YouTube royalties from over 50,000 songs, despite not having legal rights to nearly any of those works. The victims were primarily from Latin genres and ranged from hobbyist musicians to global superstars like Julio Iglesias, Don Omar, Anuel AA, Prince Royce and more.
Batista and Teran were ultimately indicted on 30 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and aggravated identity theft in November 2021. Six months later, Batista accepted a plea deal, admitting to one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. His partner, however, did not plead guilty and accept a plea deal until just before the start of his Jan. 17 trial date. Ultimately, Teran admitted guilt to single counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and transactional money laundering.
Teran was given a heftier sentence than his counterpart — in late June, he was sentenced to nearly six years in prison for his involvement in the scheme. According to the government’s sentencing memorandum, Teran’s sentence was “undoubtedly substantial” but reflects a desire to “deter future conduct” similar to the MediaMuv scam. The document adds that Teran is at high risk to re-offend, given his interest in returning to the music business after prison and the sheer scale and savviness of his scam.
“In particular, the government is alarmed that even news of his indictment did not stop Teran,” says the court document. After his indictment, the document revealed that Teran siphoned another $190,000 of stolen royalties and moved those funds to a bank account “out of the government’s reach.”
A court document filed on Aug. 7 claimed that Batista is working toward rehabilitation and should receive more leniency in his sentence as a result. “He wanted to rehabilitate his life” since his arrest in November 2021, says the sentencing memorandum. “[He] participated in Hustle 2.0, which is a self-directed learning program designed for incarcerated individuals to give them the tools for rehabilitation.” On May 3, 2023, Batista received a certificate for completing its “pre-season program.”
Many of the artists whose works were claimed and stolen from by MediaMuv are still unaware. To check and see if you are a victim, please click here and contact victim witness specialist Todd McKenney, todd.mckenney@usdoj.gov.
A federal judge ruled Friday (Aug. 18) that U.S. copyright law does not cover creative works created by artificial intelligence, weighing in on an issue that’s being closely watched by the music industry.
In a 15-page written opinion, Judge Beryl Howell upheld a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office to deny a copyright registration to computer scientist Stephen Thaler for an image created solely by an AI model. The judge cited decades of legal precedent that such protection is only afforded to works created by humans.
“The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — was … central to American copyright from its very inception,” the judge wrote. “Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them.”
In a statement Friday, Thaler’s attorney Ryan Abbot said he and his client “disagree with the district court’s judgment” and vowed to appeal: “In our view, copyright law is clear that the public is the main beneficiary of the law and this is best achieved by promoting the generation and dissemination of new works, regardless of how they are created.”
Though novel, the decision was not entirely surprising. Federal courts have long strictly limited to content created by humans, rejecting it for works created by animals, by forces of nature, and even those claimed to have been authored by divine spirits, like religious texts.
But the ruling was nonetheless important because it came amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music and other content by so-called generative AI tools, similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT. The question of copyright protection is crucial to the future role of AI since works that are not protected would be difficult to monetize.
“Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works,” the judge wrote. “The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions.”
The current case, however — dealing with a work that was admittedly created solely by a computer — “is not nearly so complex,” the judge wrote. Given the lack of any human input at all, she said, Thaler’s case presented a “clear and straightforward answer.”
Though Friday’s ruling came with a clear answer, more challenging legal dilemmas will come in the future from more subtle uses of AI. What if an AI-powered tool is used in the studio to create parts of a song, but human artists add other elements to the final product? How much human direction on the use of those tools is needed for the output to count as “human authorship”?
Earlier this year, a report by the U.S. Copyright Office said that AI-assisted works could still be copyrighted, so long as the ultimate author remains a human being. The report avoided offering easy answers, saying that protection for AI works would be “necessarily a case-by-case inquiry,” and that the final outcome would always depend on individual circumstances.
Read the full opinion here:
French Montana is facing a copyright lawsuit claiming his 2022 song “Blue Chills” features an unlicensed sample from a singer-songwriter – who says the rapper tentatively agreed to pay her for the clip but then never actually did so.
Skylar Gudasz’s ghostly 2020 song “Femme Fatal” can be heard playing throughout French’s track, and she claims that the rapper’s reps offered to pay her for the sample – both in upfront fees and an ongoing payments, including a fifty-percent share of the publishing copyright.
But in a lawsuit filed Thursday in North Carolina federal court, the singer says French (whose real name is Karim Kharbouch) then dropped “Blue Chills” without ever actually signing that deal.
“Despite repeated promises from defendants …. no signed agreement, fees, royalties, licensing agreements or monies have ever been sent to plaintiff,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
A rep for French Montana did not immediately return a request for comment.
Gudasz says she was first contacted in May 2022 by Deborah Mannis-Gardner, a well-known industry exec who has been called the “queen” of sample clearance, about French using “Femme Fatal” in an upcoming song. Gudasz says she and her lawyer then negotiated a deal in which she would receive more than $7000 in upfront fees, an .08 percent cut on master royalties, and a fifty-percent share of the copyright for French’s new composition.
But a month later, she claims that French, without notice, released the song “prior to finalizing and signing a licensing agreement.” Gudasz says that her lawyer quickly alerted Mannis-Gardner about the problem.
“Oh jeez,” Mannis-Gardner allegedly wrote in a response email, saying she would reach out to French’s attorney about the issue. But Gudasz says the situation was never resolved: “DMG continued to maintain there would be a final agreement, sent emails finalizing the licensing agreement and requested invoices from plaintiff, which plaintiff timely sent … and even sent plaintiff a congratulatory email.”
Gudasz says the aborted negotiations show that French “knowingly infringed” the earlier song, because they show that he was aware that he needed a license but chose to proceed without one. She claims that French even posted comments to Instagram congratulating her, and acknowledged her role in “Blue Chills” on an episode of Apple Music’s Rap Life Radio.
“The unauthorized and infringing use by defendants of the song ‘Femme Fatale’ has caused irreparable harm, damage and injury,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiff has been deprived of the rightful experience of benefitting and enjoying the fruits of her labor.”
In addition to French Montana, the lawsuit also names producer Harry Fraud (real name Rory William Quigley) as a defendant, as well Sony Music Entertainment and several other companies involved in French’s song. Mannis-Gardner is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit and is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Carin Leon’s former manager is suing distribution company Oplaai and two of its executives for copyright infringement over allegations of underpaid royalties.
In the lawsuit, Javier “El Tamarindo” González, CEO of Tamarindo Rekordsz, alleges that he has not been properly paid by Oplaai – his indie label’s distributor since 2018 – for revenues from Leon’s music. González owns all copyrights for songs recorded by Leon during the term of their recording deal that started in 2018 through last December.
According to the claim, Oplaai has “infringed, and continues to infringe” upon González’s copyrights in the sound recordings and compositions by “reproducing, distributing, selling, promoting, advertising, performing by means of digital audio transmission, and otherwise commercially exploiting without authority or consent.” Oplaai’s CEOs Marylu Ramos and Victor Zambrano are also named as defendants.
González and Oplaai’s partnership began in 2018 through an oral distribution agreement where he says he “granted” Oplaai a two-year license to distribute new Tamarindo Rekordsz recordings delivered to Oplaai during that period. According to the complaint, the deal would be renewed for subsequent one-year terms if both parties agreed.
Initially, the deal was that Oplaai would collect all revenue derived from Tamarindo Rekordsz’s catalog and retain 30% of the net revenue (as a distribution fee) and pay 70% of the net revenue to Tamarindo Rekordsz (as a royalty). Following Leon’s massive success during 2019 and 2020 – Oplaai “agreed” in 2021 to lower its distribution fee to 14% and to pay Tamarindo royalties in the amount of 86% of the net revenues collected by Oplaai from the catalog.
By the end of 2022, Leon and González announced they had mutually agreed to part ways after the five-year relationship, during which Leon earned his first Latin Grammy win, plus 11 entries on the Hot Latin Songs chart and 10 top-10 songs on the Regional Mexican Airplay chart.
After Leon and González negotiated a release agreement – ratifying González as the owner of all rights (including copyrights) pertaining to Leon’s recordings from February 2018 until the date of the release agreement – González formally notified Oplaai that he was terminating their pact effective April 11, according to the lawsuit. He also requested Oplaai provide him with a simple catalog delivery file so that Tamarindo Rekordsz could “commence alternative distribution.”
After the termination, “neither Oplaai, Ramos, or Zambrano had the right to copy, sell, distribute, license, or publicly perform any of the Sound Recordings. Nor did they have a license or right to exploit the Compositions.” Yet, according to the lawsuit, “even after confirming that the Distribution Agreement was terminated and representing that it had instructed its distributor to take down all Tamarindo-controlled content, Oplaai, at Ramos’ and Zambrano’s direction, has continued to distribute and exploit the Sound Recordings without license or authorization, in violation of Tamarindo’s exclusive rights.”
Furthermore, Oplaai has collected revenue from DSP’s including YouTube, Apple Music, Spotify and Amazon, among others, “as a result of its unauthorized distribution and exploitation of the Sound Recordings,” according to the claim. The lawsuit also states that Oplaai has “improperly” charged the indie label a 30% distribution fee for March and April 2023 and failed to pay Tamarindo royalties for that period. And that Oplaai has failed to provide Tamarindo with the requested migration files, thereby requiring González’s new distributor to “manually upload the data, codes, music, and other necessary information to the DSPs to migrate the catalog.”
González claims that he has suffered damages in a “specific, identifiable amount to be proven at trial” and is seeking “all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants from their infringements of Tamarindo’s and Tons’ copyrights.”
Billboard reached out to Oplaai but did not hear back at press time.
Smokey Robinson has won a protracted legal battle with a former manager who claimed he was owed nearly $1 million in touring profits from the legendary Motown singer. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Following a three-day trial that saw extended testimony from the star himself, an […]
SoundExchange is suing SiriusXM over allegations that the satellite radio giant has been “gaming the system” in order to withhold more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Virginia federal court, the royalties group claimed that SiriusXM has been using bookmaking trickery – namely, manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services – as part of a scheme to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes.”
“Through its contrived and improper apportionment, Sirius XM has engineered a windfall for itself and deprived artists of the important compensation to which they are legally entitled and desperately need,” wrote lawyers for SoundExchange in the complaint.
The allegations concern the royalties paid under so-called statutory licenses – government mandates that automatically give certain streaming services the ability to broadcast songs for a set price. Crucially, that system sets different rates for revenue from satellite broadcasts (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) versus that from so-called webcasting services, which are transmitted through the internet.
In Wednesday’s complaint, SoundExchange says SiriusXM has intentionally bundled the two products together as a single offering in recent years, allowing the company to mix the revenue in order to improperly lower its royalty bill.
“Sirius XM is gaming the system: to grossly underpay the royalties it owes, Sirius XM has unreasonably characterized revenue from its bundled product as ‘webcasting revenue’ that in actuality is “[satellite] revenue’,” SoundExchange wrote. “Sirius XM’s revenue apportionment is beyond the pale, and harms music creators.”
According to SoundExchange, that maneuver has allowed SiriusXM to shortchange artists to the tune of $150 million. The company has also allegedly refused to comply with an indepdent audit that found millions in such shortfalls.
“Sirius XM has not paid its bills,” SoundExchange wrote. “By purporting to comply with the statutory license without paying what it owes under the license, Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
A representative for SiriusXM did not immediately return a request for comment.
In a statement, SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe said the group had only resorted to litigation as a last resort. “In recent years we have viewed SiriusXM as a willingly lawful and compliant company that shares our desire for a robust streaming marketplace. But SiriusXM has and continues to wrongfully exploit the rules to significantly underpay the satellite royalties that it owes.”
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Record labels sue the Internet Archive over a project to digitize old records; Dua Lipa loses a bid to dismiss one of the “Levitating” copyright lawsuits; a federal judge questions the fairness of Live Nation’s arbitration agreements with ticket buyers; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Historical Preservation or Blatant Infringement?
Like almost anything implicating copyright law, the Great 78 Project is something of a Rorschach test.
To the Internet Archive, it’s a project of “preservation, research and discovery,” aimed at creating a “digital reference collection of underrepresented artists and genres.” Digitizing hundreds of thousands of old 78rpm records is a much-needed effort to “ensure the survival of these cultural materials for future generations to study and enjoy.”
But according to a new lawsuit filed last week by Universal Music, Sony Music and Concord, the Great 78 is nothing more than “blatant” copyright infringement under a “smokescreen” of preservation.
“The Great 78 website is a massive, unauthorized, digital record store of recordings,” lawyers for the music companies wrote in the massive lawsuit this week, which claims the Internet Archive infringed more than 2,700 songs and potentially owes as much as $412 million in damages.
“Although Internet Archive describes the Great 78 Project’s goal as ‘the preservation, research and discovery of 78 rpm records,’ the Great 78 Project is actually an illegal effort to willfully defy copyright law on an astonishing scale,” the labels wrote.
At issue in the case are so-called pre-1972 songs — a category of music that was, when the Great 78 Project launched in 2006, not covered by federal sound recording copyrights. But in 2018, federal lawmakers extended such protection to the old records as part of the Music Modernization Act.
While the new law contained carveouts that allowed “non-commercial” uses of certain old records, the labels say the Internet Archive simply “ignored the new law and plowed forward as if the Music Modernization Act had never been enacted.”
For more, go read our full breakdown of the lawsuit, including access to the actual legal complaint filed against the Internet Archive.
Other top stories…
10 YEARS FOR TORY LANEZ – The rapper was sentenced to 10 years in prison for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, capping off three years of legal drama over the violent 2020 incident. The sentence was much harsher than the penalty sought by Lanez’s lawyers (just probation) but less than the 13 years that prosecutors had requested.
DUA LIPA CAN’T BEAT DISCO CASE – A federal judge ruled that Dua Lipa must face a copyright lawsuit accusing her of copying “Levitating” from a 1979 disco song, refusing the star’s early bid to end the case. Though she ruled that Lipa’s accusers had failed to show that the pop star had ever heard the song she was accused of copying, the judge said they had shown “just enough” to proceed on their claim that the song was so “strikingly similar” that it constitutes infringement.
TWITTER FIRES BACK AT PUBLISHERS – Twitter filed its first real response to a lawsuit from music publishers alleging widespread copyright infringement on the platform, arguing that it cannot be held liable for the actions of its users. The case claims that Twitter infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, but in a motion to dismiss the case, lawyers for the Elon Musk-owned site (now rebranded to X) said the company itself was not on the hook for illegal posts by its users.
The 1975 KISS FALLOUT CONTINUES – The organizers of a Malaysian music festival are seeking 12.3 million ringgit ($2.7 million) in losses from British band The 1975 after lead singer Matty Healy’s on-stage protest of the country’s anti-gay laws prompted authorities to shut down the festival.
NO ARBITRATION FOR LIVE NATION – A federal judge ruled against Live Nation in an antitrust lawsuit over allegations of inflated ticket prices, declaring that the case should proceed as a federal class action rather than via private arbitration. Concertgoers opt into that out-of-court process when they buy tickets, but the judge ruled that the arbitration process posed a “serious risk of being fundamentally unfair” to consumers: “Because Defendants are often in effect the only ticketing game in town, would-be concertgoers are forced to accept Defendants’ [arbitration agreement] in full, or else forego the opportunity to attend events altogether.”
A former associate of Kanye West and R. Kelly is listed among the 18 names in the 41-count indictment against former President Donald Trump that was unsealed in Fulton County, Ga., Monday night (Aug. 14). Trevian C. Kutti is facing three charges under the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law — a statute typically associated with organized crime — wherein prosecutors claim the former president and his compatriots ran a “criminal enterprise” to keep Trump in the White House after his 2020 presidential election loss.
Kutti was associated with West for a period of time following his own failed 2020 presidential run, according to a source formerly close to West’s team.
Previously, Kutti worked with disgraced singer R. Kelly as his publicist until 2018, according to a 2020 Chicago Sun-Times article covering her work as a lobbyist to legalize marijuana in Illinois. Kelly is currently serving a 20-year sentence in Chicago after convictions on child pornography and enticement of a minor charges.
Kutti, whose unverified Instagram bio lists her as a “solutionist… equal opportunity capitalist… media manipulator,” is facing charges of conspiracy to commit solicitation of false statements and writings and influencing witnesses. She did not respond to Billboard‘s request for comment on the charges at press time.
The latest indictment against Trump includes 41 criminal charges against 18 Trump associates alleging acts aimed at trying to reverse his election loss, including Trump famously calling Georgia’s Republican secretary of state in a bid to have him “find” enough votes to help him win the pivotal state, as well as harassing an election worker with false claims of fraud and trying to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the state’s citizens and appoint their own slate of pro-Trump electors. In one of the most shocking claims, the indictment says the Trump team allegedly attempted to gain access to voting machines in a rural county in order to steal data from the voting machine company.
Reuters reported that Kutti’s online biography from 2021 identified her as a member of the “Young Black Leadership Council under President Trump,” while also claiming that beginning in Sept. 2018 she was “secured as a publicist to Kanye West” and served as his “director of operations.” In Dec. 2021 a spokesperson for West said that Kutti was not “associated” with the rapper at the time she is accused of pressuring a Georgia election worker to confess to false allegations of committing voter fraud.
A spokesperson for Ye could not be reached for comment at press time.
Trump is facing 13 charges in the case, which contains the most potential legal jeopardy for the twice-impeached MAGA real estate mogul who was indicted in March in a New York case tied to hush payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels. He was indicted again in June by a federal grand jury in Miami in his classified documents case and earlier this month by special counsel Jack Smith in a federal probe into Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
While Kutti is not well-known, some more familiar names were in the Fulton County indictment, including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump lawyer (and the mastermind of the bogus elector scheme) John Eastman, another Trump attorney, Sidney Powell, and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
“I believe that the charges that were filed on me are for a lack of better words baloney,” Kutti reportedly said in a text to the Wall Street Journal. “I completely stand by what I said to the election worker that I was simply a crisis manager.”
Forbes reported on Tuesday that leading up to the 2020 election, Kutti worked as a campaign manager for QAnon conspiracy supporter Angela Stanton King, who lost an election for the congressional seat of late civil rights icon John Lewis.
Kutti also made headlines as the person who Reuters said was caught on video trying to convince frightened Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman — whom Trump had attacked in public and who later faced death threats — to confess to Trump’s false voter fraud allegations by saying that if she didn’t she would be hauled off to jail.
Count 30 of the indictment says that Kutti and two others, “unlawfully conspired to solicit, request, and importune Ruby Freeman, a Fulton County, Georgia, election worker, to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of False Statements and Writings, O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20, by knowingly and willfully making a false statement and representation concerning events at State Farm Arena in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia.” It also claims that Kutti “traveled to Fulton County, Georgia, and placed a telephone call to Ruby Freeman while in Fulton County, Georgia, which were overt acts to effect the object of the conspiracy, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.”
Count 31 alleges that around Jan. 4, 2021, the trio, “knowingly and unlawfully engaged in misleading conduct toward Ruby Freeman, a Fulton County, Georgia, election worker, by stating that she needed protection and by purporting to offer her help, with intent to influence her testimony in an official proceeding in Fulton County, Georgia, concerning events at State Farm Arena in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.”
While Trump continues to be the Republican presidential front-runner by a wide margin despite his multiple layers of legal jeopardy, CNN noted that Fulton County DA Fani Willis’ case is insulated from any potential Trump meddling if he is re-elected in 2024 because he would be unable to pardon himself or any of his allies on the state charges or dismiss Fulton County prosecutors who brought the charges.
In a predictable pattern, Trump described his latest indictment as part of a politically motivated “witch hunt” while labeling DA Willis as “racist and corrupt.” Giuliani, who famously used RICO statutes to combat organized crime in New York, called the charges “an affront to democracy.”
Twitter has filed its first formal response to a lawsuit from music publishers alleging widespread copyright infringement on the platform, arguing that it cannot be held liable for the actions of its users.
The filing came two months after dozens of music publishers sued the Elon Musk-owned site, claiming its users had infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for $255 million in damages.
In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed Monday, lawyers for Twitter (now re-branded to X) argued that the company itself was not on the hook for illegal posts by its users. Among other things, they cited the Supreme Court’s high-profile 2005 ruling on the filing sharing service Grokster, which said that digital services cannot be sued unless they take active steps to encourage infringement by users.
“In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that X encouraged, induced, or took affirmative steps with the intent to foster the infringement of plaintiffs’ works,” wrote the company’s lawyers, hailing from the law firm Quinn Emanuel. “To the contrary, X’s anti-infringement policies and practices … belie any reasonable assumption that X has induced its users to infringe any copyrights.”
The case against Twitter was organized by the National Music Publishers’ Association, which has long argued that the site is the last major social media service refusing to license music. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat have all allegedly entered into such deals with publishers, providing a library of licensed music for users to legally add to their posts.
“Twitter stands alone as the largest social media platform that has completely refused to license the millions of songs on its service,” said NMPA president/CEO David Israelite when the case was filed in June. “Twitter knows full well that music is leaked, launched and streamed by billions of people every day on its platform.”
But in Monday’s response, Twitter’s lawyers argued that even if such licensing deals were the NMPA’s preferred outcome, they are not legally required to avoid a copyright lawsuit – and that the failure to secure one was irrelevant to the infringement case against it.
“The allegation … is just another way of saying that X could do more to address the unauthorized use of music on the site by purchasing licenses from Plaintiffs on behalf of X’s users,” Twitter’s attorneys wrote. “Whether X sought music licenses for users or elected not to do so has no bearing on this inquiry; it is not evidence of an intent to encourage infringement.”
Notably, this week’s filing from Twitter did not delve into the thorny issue of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal law that limits how websites like Twitter can be sued over copyright infringement by their users.
The DMCA provides sites like Twitter with immunity — a “safe harbor” — from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove infringing content and ban repeated violators from the platform. The publishers’ lawsuit goes to great lengths to argue that Twitter failed to do either of those things, meaning the site has legally forfeited the DMCA’s protections.
Twitter heavily refutes that point and, though they did not do so on Monday, its lawyers will undoubtedly invoke the DMCA’s protections at a later stage of the case if their current motion is denied.
The case against Twitter was filed by Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group, peermusic, ABKCO Music, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis Songs Group, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Mayimba Music, Reservoir Media Management, Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, The Royalty Network, Ultra Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music and Wixen Music Publishing.
A rep for NMPA did not immediately return a request for comment on Twitter’s new filing.