EMI Christian Music Group, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC
840 F.3d 69
2d Cir.2016Background
- MP3tunes (founded by Michael Robertson) operated two services: MP3tunes.com (music lockers) and sideload.com (indexed links to free music on the internet); employees and executives actively sideloaded content into the index.
- Sideloaded files expanded the searchable index and drove users to paid locker services; sideloaded content often came from sites that appeared to offer pirated music.
- Plaintiffs (major record companies and publishers) sued for widespread copyright infringement; district court granted partial summary judgment to defendants on DMCA safe-harbor grounds, but a jury later returned a $48M verdict for plaintiffs.
- District court post-trial vacated portions of the verdict (finding insufficient evidence of red-flag knowledge/willful blindness for some categories) and reduced punitive damages; both sides appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed (1) whether MP3tunes reasonably implemented a §512(i) repeat-infringer policy, (2) whether there was red-flag knowledge or willful blindness for certain categories (pre-2007 MP3s, Beatles songs, etc.), and (3) statutory-damages/other liability issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of “repeat infringer” under §512(i) | "Repeat infringer" includes users who repeatedly sideload/copy infringing content (even for personal use); MP3tunes failed to track those users. | "Repeat infringer" should be limited to users who upload/share to the public (willful uploaders), not private downloaders. | Court rejects narrow definition; vacates summary judgment — fact issues exist whether MP3tunes reasonably implemented a repeat-infringer policy with respect to sideloading. |
| Whether MP3tunes reasonably implemented a repeat-infringer policy | MP3tunes didn’t connect takedown notices to sideloading users and encouraged sideloading, so policy was not reasonably implemented. | MP3tunes had terminated accounts and shouldn’t be required to monitor broadly. | Reasonable jury could find MP3tunes failed to reasonably implement a policy; remand for further proceedings. |
| Red-flag knowledge / willful blindness for pre-2007 MP3s and Beatles tracks | Evidence (executive statements, takedown notices, internal practices) made infringement obvious; MP3tunes had the means to act but didn’t. | Imposing a duty to disable these groups would effectively require prohibited monitoring; insufficient specific knowledge. | Reverses district court’s JMOL: sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find red-flag knowledge/willful blindness as to pre-2007 MP3s and Beatles songs. |
| Multiple statutory damages for sound recording and underlying composition owned by different parties | Separate owners of composition and recording should each be able to recover statutory damages. | The Copyright Act treats derivative works and their parts as one “work” for §504(c), so only one statutory award per work. | Affirms district court: one statutory-damages award for the composition and corresponding sound recording (derivative-work rule). |
Key Cases Cited
- Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012) (willful blindness may supply knowledge under the DMCA)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) (failures to associate notices with webmasters can raise fact issues on repeat-infringer implementation)
- Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2016) (copyright owner must show provider had knowledge or awareness of specific infringing instances)
- Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (direct infringement requires volitional conduct)
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (U.S. 2005) (inducing or promoting infringement can create secondary liability despite noninfringing uses)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (U.S. 1984) (manufacturers of devices capable of substantial noninfringing uses not liable absent intent to promote infringement)
- Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical Sci. Commc’ns, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1997) (vicarious liability requires right and ability to supervise plus direct financial interest)
- Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963) (early articulation of vicarious liability in copyright law)