UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.

Last updated

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.
USDCSDNY.svg
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case nameUMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.
DecidedApril 28, 2000
Docket nos. 1:00-cv-00472
Citation(s)92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
Holding
Distribution of legitimately purchased music files via the Internet entails the creation of copies that require authorization under U.S. copyright law.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Jed S. Rakoff
Keywords
Copyright, Fair Use, Transformative use

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) was a landmark case of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning the unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials on the Internet. The case concerned unauthorized duplication by the company MP3.com of songs from a wide selection of compact discs for the purposes of launching a service that allowed users to access their private music collections online from anywhere in the world. [1] This business model was ruled to be a violation of American copyright law.

Contents

Background

Upon the rise of music file sharing by consumers on the Internet, MP3,com conceived a new service in early 2000 called My.MP3.com that allowed users to rip songs from compact discs that they had already purchased legitimately, then upload the resulting MP3 files to an account managed by MP3.com. The users would then be able to log into their accounts from any Internet-connected device anywhere in the world, and listen to the music that they had previously uploaded. [2] Users quickly compiled a library of over 80,000 albums, with the songs stored on servers at MP3.com. [3] The company also attempted to expand the library by buying tens of thousands of albums on compact disc itself, and adding those to the library to be accessed by its users. [1]

To use the service, the My.MP3.com subscriber had to "confirm" that they had legitimately purchased the CD by placing it in their computer's CD drive while logged in to My.MP3.com, thus allowing a purchase code to be recorded by the service. A subscriber could also purchase a CD from one of defendant's cooperating online retailers. Despite this process, the record companies argued that MP3.com had made few efforts to ensure that the songs being uploaded by its users had in fact been legitimately purchased in CD form. [1]

Eleven different record companies, with UMG Recordings serving as the lead plaintiff, sued MP3.com for failing to secure permission for copies of songs that were created automatically when users uploaded ripped songs to the company's servers. MP3.com argued that the owners of compact discs were entitled to make copies of copyrighted songs that they had purchased legitimately, and give them to any selected party (including an online service) per the fair use defense in American copyright law, as well as the first sale doctrine. [3] MP3.com also claimed that its business plan helped the record industry by enabling music fans to enjoy their purchased music outside of the home. [4]

MP3.com also argued that a copied MP3 file suffered from lesser audio fidelity and lower quality than the equivalent song on a compact disc, so the files in its My.MP3.com library constituted transformative use under copyright law. MP3.com also accused the record companies of copyright misuse by filing a lawsuit for purposes of revenge, while its subscribers were simply engaged in space shifting consuming their purchased media in different environments which had been upheld by several Supreme Court precedents. [1]

Opinion of the court

As stated by Judge Jed S. Rakoff in his opinion: “The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues, but not in this case.” Rakoff rejected arguments by MP3.com that its service merely allowed listeners to practice space shifting, stating that "stripped to its essence, defendant's 'consumer protection' argument amounts to nothing more than a bold claim that defendant should be able to misappropriate plaintiff's property simply because there is a consumer demand for it. This hardly appeals to the conscience of equity." [1]

Rakoff also ruled that given recent advances in computing technology and the playback devices used by the typical music consumer, an MP3 file was not substantially different in quality from a compact disc, so a ripped file does not qualify as transformative use under copyright law, while MP3.com's claim that it was protecting or enhancing the music industry was rejected because the service infringed on the companies' distribution rights. [1]

Impact

With this decision, the court drew a distinction between traditional space shifting, which had previously been allowed for video cassettes and other physical media, and "virtual" space shifting as practiced by My.MP3.com. This type of virtual space shifting required the creation of a copy at the MP3.com servers, which in turn required authorization from the copyright owners under copyright law.

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. was cited at the time as an important decision in the then-burgeoning practice of file sharing and the trading of unauthorized music and media files on the Internet. [5] [6] However, some scholars argued that the ruling only addressed the specific business model practiced by My.MP3.com, and left larger file sharing trends on the Internet unaddressed, [7] particularly those practices not covered by a legitimate (if unsuccessful) business plan. [8] The ruling also neglected to address any responsibilities that the legacy record companies may or may not have had in the management of their own copyrighted products and preventing them from being illegally traded. [9]

This ruling resulted in several additional legal claims against MP3.com, with the company ultimately owing more than $150 million to legacy record companies. [10] The judgments pushed MP3.com into severe financial difficulties which were averted by a merger with Vivendi Universal. [11]

Related Research Articles

Kazaa Media Desktop. was a peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol licensed by Joltid Ltd. and operated as Kazaa by Sharman Networks. Kazaa was subsequently under license as a legal music subscription service by Atrinsic, Inc., which lasted until August 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Napster</span> On-line peer-to-peer file sharing software

Napster was a peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing application primarily associated with digital audio file distribution. Founded by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker, the platform originally launched on June 1, 1999. Audio shared on the service was typically encoded in the MP3 format. As the software became popular, the company encountered legal difficulties over copyright infringement. Napster ceased operations in 2001 after losing multiple lawsuits and filed for bankruptcy in June 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Robertson (businessman)</span> American businessman

Michael Robertson is the founder and former CEO of MP3.com, an Internet music site. In the years following his departure from MP3.com Robertson has launched several companies, including Linspire, SIPphone, MP3tunes, and Ajax13. He is also founder of OnRad.io, a search engine for radio and DAR.fm, a website for recording audio from internet radio.

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital music store</span> Online retailer of audio files

A digital music store is a business that sells digital audio files of music recordings over the Internet. Customers gain ownership of a license to use the files, in contrast to a music streaming service, where they listen to recordings without gaining ownership. Customers pay either for each recording or on a subscription basis. Online music stores generally also offer partial streaming previews of songs, with some songs even available for full length listening. They typically show a picture of the album art or of the performer or band for each song. Some online music stores also sell recorded speech files, such as podcasts, and video files of movies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MP3.com</span> Music news website

MP3.com was a web site operated by Paramount Global publishing tabloid-style news items about digital music and artists, songs, services, and technologies. It is better known for its original incarnation as a legal, free music-sharing service, named after the popular music file format MP3, popular with independent musicians for promoting their work. That service was shut down on December 2, 2003, by CNET, which, after purchasing the domain name, established the current MP3.com site.

The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Ripping is the extraction of digital content from a container, such as a CD, onto a new digital location. Originally, the term meant to rip music from Commodore 64 games. Later, the term was applied to ripping WAV or MP3 files from digital audio CDs, and after that to the extraction of contents from any storage media, including DVD and Blu-ray discs, as well as the extraction of video game sprites.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>BMG Music v. Gonzalez</i> U.S. court case

BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, was a court decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a record company could sue a person who engaged in online sharing of music files for copyright infringement. The decision is noteworthy for rejecting the defendant's fair use defense, which had rested upon her contention that she was merely "sampling" songs with the intention of possibly purchasing the downloaded songs in the future, a practice known informally as "try before you buy".

Lala was an online music store created by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Bill Nguyen. The service allowed members to legally create online shareable "playlists" of their own uploaded music which could play full length songs for other registered Lala members, purchase MP3s, stream music on a one-time basis or as inexpensively purchased "web songs," buy new CDs from the Lala store, leave blurbs on other members' pages, and participate in the community forums. Lala contracted with major labels and offered a large catalog of albums to stream or purchase. Their home page claimed over 8 million licensed songs available.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

In the first decade of the 21st century, the rise of digital media on the internet and computers as a central and primary means to record, distribute, store, and play music caused widespread economic changes in the music industry. The rise of digital media with high-speed internet access fundamentally changed the relationships between artists, record companies, promoters, retail music stores, the technology industry, and consumers. The rise of digital music consumption options contributed to several fundamental changes in consumption. One significant change in the music industry was the remarkable decline of conventional album sales on CD and vinyl. With the à la carte sales models increasing in popularity, consumers no longer downloaded entire albums but rather chose single songs.

A music streaming service is a type of streaming media service that focuses primarily on music, and sometimes other forms of digital audio content such as podcasts. These services are usually subscription-based services allowing users to stream digital copyright restricted songs on-demand from a centralized library provided by the service. Some services may offer free tiers with limitations, such as advertising and limits on use. They typically incorporate a recommender system to help users discover other songs they may enjoy based on their listening history and other factors, as well as the ability to create and share public playlists with other users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Music piracy</span> Copying and distribution of music without the consent of creators or copyright holders

Music piracy is the copying and distributing of recordings of a piece of music for which the rights owners did not give consent. In the contemporary legal environment, it is a form of copyright infringement, which may be either a civil wrong or a crime depending on jurisdiction. The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw much controversy over the ethics of redistributing media content, how much production and distribution companies in the media were losing, and the very scope of what ought to be considered piracy – and cases involving the piracy of music were among the most frequently discussed in the debate.

Metallica, et al. v. Napster, Inc. was a 2000 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case that focused on copyright infringement, racketeering, and unlawful use of digital audio interface devices. Metallica vs. Napster, Inc. was the first case that involved an artist suing a peer-to-peer file sharing ("P2P") software company.

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> 2011 US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

<i>RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.</i>

RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311, was a copyright law case of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, over the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and whether those provisions are violated by a service that enables Internet users to circumvent the copyright protection controls used by a streaming platform.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
  2. King, Brad (May 10, 2000). "MyMP3.com Nixes Major Labels". Wired. ISSN   1059-1028 . Retrieved September 26, 2022.
  3. 1 2 Boehlert, Eric (June 14, 2000). "Mega record labels: We want our MP3". Salon. Retrieved September 26, 2022.
  4. Smith, Tony. "MP3.com preps MyMP3.com mk. 2". www.theregister.com. Retrieved September 26, 2022.
  5. Menta, Richard (May 8, 2000). "MP3 News Wire: Celebrity Net Worth, Height, Biography & More". MP3 News Wire. Retrieved September 26, 2022.
  6. Alexander, Peter J. (2002). "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: The Case of the Music Recording Industry". Review of Industrial Organization. 20 (2): 151–161. doi:10.1023/A:1013819218792. S2CID   152314449 via SpringerLink.
  7. Steele, Sara (2000). "UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.: Signaling the Need for a Deeper Analysis of Copyright Infringement of Digital Recordings". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 21 (1): 31–64 via HeinOnline.
  8. Comis, Alexander G. (2002). "Copyright Killed the Internet Star: The Record Industry's Battle to Stop Copyright Infringement Online; A Case Note on UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. and the Creation of a Derivative Work by the Digitization of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings". Southwestern University Law Review. 31 (4): 753–780 via HeinOnline.
  9. Field, Corey (2002). "Corporations and Copyright in Cyberspace: Hidden Interest Regulation and the Corporate Director's Duty to Monitor - UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. Seen from the Perspective of In Re Caremark Derivative Litigation". Delaware Journal of Corporate Law. 27 (1): 99–150 via HeinOnline.
  10. "MP3.com Settles With Sony Music". ABC News. Retrieved September 26, 2022.
  11. Press release: "Vivendi Universal Closes on Acquisition of MP3.com", August 29, 2001