Apple called 'modern tape pirate' in copyright lawsuit
Apple and two music distribution companies with which it contracts were labeled as "modern tape pirates" in a copyright infringement lawsuit last week, with the plaintiff claiming iTunes currently sells at least 98 recordings without a proper license.
The complaint from Four Jays Music Company, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California last Friday, asserts Apple and its cohorts profit from pirated music authored by composer Harry Warren.
Warren in 1955 founded Four Jays Music to protect his vast collection copyrighted works, many of which went on to become standards. Performed by prominent artists over the years, Warren's compositions include "The Chatanooga Choo Choo" and 81 Top-10 hits including "At Last," "I Only Have Eyes for You," "Jeepers Creepers" and "The Gold Diggers' Song (We're in the Money)."
According to the suit, Apple reproduced and distributed pirated recordings of Warren's owned compositions through contracts with Orchard Enterprises and Cleopatra Records, the latter of which operates under a variety of labels including Goldenlane Records, Magic Gold Records, Master Classics and more. Orchard and Cleopatra are thought to be two of the largest content providers on iTunes, with Cleopatra media accounting for some 1% of the service's entire music catalog, the suit claims.
Instead of obtaining so-called "mechanical licenses," which require express consent to duplicate and distribute recordings from the copyright holder, Cleopatra supposedly duplicated the music and offered it to Apple through Orchard contrary to proper copyright procedure.
As explained in the complaint, "virtually all" asserted recordings were produced between 1930 and 1972. Due to mass consolidation in the music industry, the recordings have since landed in the back catalogs of Sony, Universal and Warner, before Cleopatra was established. As Cleopatra did not "fix" the original recordings, nor did it attempt to negotiate a mechanical license for the same content, it offered and continues to offer the compositions illegally.
Four Jays concedes one or more defendants might have sought a license through the Harry Fox Agency or a compulsory license via services like Music Reports. However, pirated music, as defined in the case, does not qualify for protections offered under those licensing terms.
Each party targeted in the complaint is alleged to have known about infringing conduct for "several years." Apple in particular is singled out for willfully failing to employ "adequate human resources, screening mechanisms, or use of digital fingerprinting technology" to detect illegal duplicates, tools it applies to other services.
Four Jays seeks a permanent injunction against Apple and the two distributors, damages and legal fees. The court sent a notice regarding policies on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options to all parties on Monday.
The complaint from Four Jays Music Company, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California last Friday, asserts Apple and its cohorts profit from pirated music authored by composer Harry Warren.
Warren in 1955 founded Four Jays Music to protect his vast collection copyrighted works, many of which went on to become standards. Performed by prominent artists over the years, Warren's compositions include "The Chatanooga Choo Choo" and 81 Top-10 hits including "At Last," "I Only Have Eyes for You," "Jeepers Creepers" and "The Gold Diggers' Song (We're in the Money)."
According to the suit, Apple reproduced and distributed pirated recordings of Warren's owned compositions through contracts with Orchard Enterprises and Cleopatra Records, the latter of which operates under a variety of labels including Goldenlane Records, Magic Gold Records, Master Classics and more. Orchard and Cleopatra are thought to be two of the largest content providers on iTunes, with Cleopatra media accounting for some 1% of the service's entire music catalog, the suit claims.
Instead of obtaining so-called "mechanical licenses," which require express consent to duplicate and distribute recordings from the copyright holder, Cleopatra supposedly duplicated the music and offered it to Apple through Orchard contrary to proper copyright procedure.
As explained in the complaint, "virtually all" asserted recordings were produced between 1930 and 1972. Due to mass consolidation in the music industry, the recordings have since landed in the back catalogs of Sony, Universal and Warner, before Cleopatra was established. As Cleopatra did not "fix" the original recordings, nor did it attempt to negotiate a mechanical license for the same content, it offered and continues to offer the compositions illegally.
Four Jays concedes one or more defendants might have sought a license through the Harry Fox Agency or a compulsory license via services like Music Reports. However, pirated music, as defined in the case, does not qualify for protections offered under those licensing terms.
Each party targeted in the complaint is alleged to have known about infringing conduct for "several years." Apple in particular is singled out for willfully failing to employ "adequate human resources, screening mechanisms, or use of digital fingerprinting technology" to detect illegal duplicates, tools it applies to other services.
Four Jays seeks a permanent injunction against Apple and the two distributors, damages and legal fees. The court sent a notice regarding policies on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options to all parties on Monday.
Four Jays Copyright Suit by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Comments
Calling the company who saved the music industry from rampant piracy a pirate? That’s a stretch.
"... "virtually all" asserted recordings were produced between 1930 and 1972" Are recordings covered by copyright forever? We're talking about the last recording done 47 years ago when everything was done on paper and microfilm.
I glanced through the complaint and they're talking about the old music file sharing cases and bootleg copies of music. Give me a break, this music is old and Mr Warren died in 1981 so decedents or someone else is trying to continue to get money off of Mr Warren's work.
Apple would need an army of lawyers to figure out who owns what. My question is: Did they contact Apple first to get this resolved or did they go directly to a lawsuit? It’s not really a big deal that this is going to court... besides wasting the courts time. They should have brought in an independent arbitrator...
Isn't there a procedure to report problems, or must they jump to a lawsuit?
When a lawsuit can potentially get you a lot more than the pennies you get for licenced streams, the answer to these gold diggers is obvious.
The complaint against Apple, if it is properly summarised in the article, is ridiculous. The idea that Apple should be able to find out that less than a hundred of the 50 million or so tunes they have on iTunes doesn't have a proper license, despite I'm sure signing contracts with Cleopatra in which that company asserts they do have the correct rights just because .. it's Apple .. stretches credulity.
Modern Day Pirate!
98 Recordings....out of tens of millions......
Get bent, jog on!
Follow the money.
But there could be an alternative but complementary explanation: https://www.instructables.com/id/Duct-Tape-Pirate-Ship/
What I don't understand is the implication here that that this is just "old music" and therefore somehow isn't entitled to legal protection. Is "old music" somehow no longer entertaining or creative? The attitude is deeply troubling, especially to someone who works at bringing to life the creative work of people dead for centuries.
New compositions are currently protected for the life of the composer plus 70 years. Rules vary for works (like these) created before 1978. (Read for yourself at https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html.)