Apple hit with another lawsuit claiming iTunes music piracy

AppleInsider

A new lawsuit alleging that Apple is engaged in "flagrant" music piracy on iTunes was levied on Wednesday, following at least two identical cases lodged by the same entities.

The lawsuit is only the latest in a string of complaints accusing Apple of being involved in music piracy.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a series of similar lawsuits claiming that Apple is profiting from illegally reproduced copyrighted music being sold on iTunes, including one that was lodged on April 22.

This new suit names several plaintiffs who have filed past complaints against Apple, such as SA Music, The Harold Arlen Trust, Ray Henderson Music Company and Four Jays Music Company.

As in past complaints, the suit claims that Apple is selling musical compositions on iTunes that were illegally re-recorded from physical copies by music distribution companies without the proper mechanical licenses.

In this case, the lawsuit claims that Ideal Music and Genepool Distribution worked together to get pirated musical compositions into iTunes, saying that the two companies, along with Apple, are "jointly and severally liable as members of a distinct distribution chain."

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit together wrote hundreds of popular songs and jazz standards, including "Over the Rainbow" by Harold Arlen, "I Only Have Eyes for You" by Harry Warren, and "It All Depends on You" by Ray Henderson.

They're seeking damages and legal fees, as well as a permanent injunction on the defendants from infringing on the copyrighted material.

SA Music v Apple - April 2020 by Mikey Campbell on Scribd

rob53

I can get just about any song on youtube and other sites for free. Why aren't these people going after youtube and the others? 

david | dahoveed

Is this the darts approach to the law? Keep throwing darts until one of them hits something? If these are taken seriously by the courts, Apple will file to have them combined into one case before one court.

tommikele

david | dahoveed said:

Is this the darts approach to the law? Keep throwing darts until one of them hits something? If these are taken seriously by the courts, Apple will file to have them combined into one case before one court.

Actually, it’s not the darts approach. It’s called "I own the songs and you are part of a chain of illegal distribution. I want the money." The only question here for Apple is will they be held jointly and or separately libel once the ownership rights are established. The law is hazy on establishing liability in a supply chain like this. Apple may be able to establish they had no reason or evidence to doubt distributors right to sell the music and get out from under. Otherwise it will cost them the profits and the plaintiffs will look for punitive damages. That's the big money if you can get it from a set of deep pockets. Doubtful, but worth a try. This claim will be taken quite seriously by the courts as it should be. It's an intellectual property case. The gentle outrage is amusing since I bet you’ve expressed plenty of it when Apple says someone else is stealing their IP. Did you ever know anyone who made their living as a musician or writer or artist and found their work being sold illegally or pirated? I do. I am married to a pretty successful writer.

Punultimate

tommikele said:

david | dahoveed said:

Is this the darts approach to the law? Keep throwing darts until one of them hits something? If these are taken seriously by the courts, Apple will file to have them combined into one case before one court.

Actually, it’s not the darts approach. It’s called "I own the songs and you are part of a chain of illegal distribution. I want the money." The only question here for Apple is will they be held jointly and or separately libel once the ownership rights are established. The law is hazy on establishing liability in a supply chain like this. Apple may be able to establish they had no reason or evidence to doubt distributors right to sell the music and get out from under. Otherwise it will cost them the profits and the plaintiffs will look for punitive damages. That's the big money if you can get it from a set of deep pockets. Doubtful, but worth a try. This claim will be taken quite seriously by the courts as it should be. It's an intellectual property case. The gentle outrage is amusing since I bet you’ve expressed plenty of it when Apple says someone else is stealing their IP. Did you ever know anyone who made their living as a musician or writer or artist and found their work being sold illegally or pirated? I do. I am married to a pretty successful writer.

It's interesting how you have such in depth knowledge around the guilt in a case that was only recently filed and feel so assured that Apple is at fault.  The music industry is a spider web of licensing, cross licensing, where rights and frequently sold and acquired, regardless of who originally wrote the music.  Sounds like you just don't seem to be a fan of Apple yourself from your tone.

fred1

“The plaintiffs in the lawsuit together wrote hundreds of popular songs and jazz standards, including "Over the Rainbow" by Harold Arlen, "I Only Have Eyes for You" by Harry Warren, and "It All Depends on You" by Ray Henderson.“

These composers do deserve a lot of credit, and maybe even compensation, if they can be plaintiffs in a lawsuit when they’ve been dead for 30 or 40 years!

seanj

Punultimate said:

It's interesting how you have such in depth knowledge around the guilt in a case that was only recently filed and feel so assured that Apple is at fault.  The music industry is a spider web of licensing, cross licensing, where rights and frequently sold and acquired, regardless of who originally wrote the music.  Sounds like you just don't seem to be a fan of Apple yourself from your tone.

Sounds like you’re one of these people who believe in “my country right or wrong”.

Its perfectly possible to be an Apple fan while also acknowledging that the part of Apple that does the legal vetting of submissions to iTunes is too lax: the same is true for other music stores like Amazon, etc. Because of the cost in checking rights they simply trust anyone who claims to have the right to sell a particular song.
Personally I’m tired of reporting pirate material to them. Often it’s blatant, being made from a vinyl recording and encoded as a 128kbit mp3 before being sold as an aac.
The problem for Apple/Amazon/etc the legal cost in confirming the ownership of song recording is prohibitively expensive compared to likely revenue. If they were to check properly, these music stores would only stock huge selling established artists like The Beatles, Springsteen, Taylor Swift, etc.

jcs2305

Punultimate said:

tommikele said:

david | dahoveed said:

Is this the darts approach to the law? Keep throwing darts until one of them hits something? If these are taken seriously by the courts, Apple will file to have them combined into one case before one court.

Actually, it’s not the darts approach. It’s called "I own the songs and you are part of a chain of illegal distribution. I want the money." The only question here for Apple is will they be held jointly and or separately libel once the ownership rights are established. The law is hazy on establishing liability in a supply chain like this. Apple may be able to establish they had no reason or evidence to doubt distributors right to sell the music and get out from under. Otherwise it will cost them the profits and the plaintiffs will look for punitive damages. That's the big money if you can get it from a set of deep pockets. Doubtful, but worth a try. This claim will be taken quite seriously by the courts as it should be. It's an intellectual property case. The gentle outrage is amusing since I bet you’ve expressed plenty of it when Apple says someone else is stealing their IP. Did you ever know anyone who made their living as a musician or writer or artist and found their work being sold illegally or pirated? I do. I am married to a pretty successful writer.

It's interesting how you have such in depth knowledge around the guilt in a case that was only recently filed and feel so assured that Apple is at fault.  The music industry is a spider web of licensing, cross licensing, where rights and frequently sold and acquired, regardless of who originally wrote the music.  Sounds like you just don't seem to be a fan of Apple yourself from your tone.

I didn't see the response as saying Apple was guilty. It was more explaining to the OP that it wasn't the so called "darts approach" and the suit is pretty clear in what it is asking for and why. Your response is the exact gentle outrage he is referring to haha.

Here is the part that I think is important.. and I hope is the case on Apple's behalf.

"Apple may be able to establish they had no reason or evidence to doubt distributors right to sell the music and get out from under".

Not all single post folks are trolls I have learned, and not every response has to be a hardcore Apple defense. In this case if these folks are owed money I would hope that Apple would make them whole.

tommikele

Punultimate said:

tommikele said:

david | dahoveed said:

Is this the darts approach to the law? Keep throwing darts until one of them hits something? If these are taken seriously by the courts, Apple will file to have them combined into one case before one court.

Actually, it’s not the darts approach. It’s called "I own the songs and you are part of a chain of illegal distribution. I want the money." The only question here for Apple is will they be held jointly and or separately libel once the ownership rights are established. The law is hazy on establishing liability in a supply chain like this. Apple may be able to establish they had no reason or evidence to doubt distributors right to sell the music and get out from under. Otherwise it will cost them the profits and the plaintiffs will look for punitive damages. That's the big money if you can get it from a set of deep pockets. Doubtful, but worth a try. This claim will be taken quite seriously by the courts as it should be. It's an intellectual property case. The gentle outrage is amusing since I bet you’ve expressed plenty of it when Apple says someone else is stealing their IP. Did you ever know anyone who made their living as a musician or writer or artist and found their work being sold illegally or pirated? I do. I am married to a pretty successful writer.

It's interesting how you have such in depth knowledge around the guilt in a case that was only recently filed and feel so assured that Apple is at fault.  The music industry is a spider web of licensing, cross licensing, where rights and frequently sold and acquired, regardless of who originally wrote the music.  Sounds like you just don't seem to be a fan of Apple yourself from your tone.

My first Apple computer was a IICi and haven't owned another brand since. Does that establish my Apple cred for you? Where you even alive then?.
.
Did you miss the part where I mentioned what my wife does for a living? I am incredibly familiar with this issue and the laws surrounding it. Our family has had hundred of thousands dollars stolen from us over the last 25 years and we have pursued more than 12 lawsuits to recover damages. Aside from a lawyer who specializes in these types of cases, I probably know more about it than 99.9% of the population and certainly more than you do.
.
If you read my post carefully you will find I did not say Apple was guilty of anything and I said "once the ownership rights are established" and "if they can't get out from under.". I spoke of what was likely to happen if those events are established. "Apple" has nothing to do with it. The name is irrelevant to any legal aspect of the suit. They are part of the distribution chain and therefore included in the lawsuit.
.
Yes, the music business is a spider web of deals, transfers, sub rights and confusing structures, but that doesn't change any of this.
.
If you look at who the lawyers represent you will quickly learn they are creators or their heirs. The first thing they will do is try to untangle the web you spoke of and as I said "establish ownership rights."
.
The idea that anytime Apple is sued it is a victim of greedy lawyers and being taken advantage of because of their size and success is garbage. They are just as capable of committing these acts as any other company is. Big powerful companies, including the ones we like a lot, commit more than their share of less than admirable acts. Apple, while more socially conscious than most, is a big powerful company.