SA Music LLC v. Apple, Inc, 3:20-cv-02146

Background

Plaintiffs (rights-holders for 101 musical compositions by Harold Arlen, Ray Henderson, and Harry Warren) allege distributors (Adasam, Pickwick, Genepool, Ideal) uploaded infringing recordings to Apple’s U.S. iTunes Store without authorization.
Apple operates the iTunes Store, requires content providers to create accounts and contractually warrant they hold necessary rights, and maintains a notice-and-takedown procedure that removes content unless the uploader asserts rights within five days.
Plaintiffs claim Apple reproduced, distributed (including by “making available” and by sales), and imported recordings embodying the compositions.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on willfulness and related issues; plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment on ownership, validity, embodiment, and lack of licenses. Apple filed Daubert motions to exclude three plaintiff experts.
Court: Apple’s summary judgment on willfulness granted (plaintiffs’ denied); Apple’s motion rejecting a “making available” theory denied; plaintiffs’ ownership/validity/embodiment motion granted in part and denied in part; summary judgment on infringement denied due to genuine disputes over volitional conduct; Daubert motions granted in part (three experts excluded/limited).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Willfulness (increased damages)	Apple either knew uploaders were serial infringers or was willfully blind/reckless in permitting them to upload; frequent takedown notices and distributor behavior put Apple on notice.	Apple reasonably relied on contractual warranties from uploaders and on its takedown procedure; no actual knowledge or deliberate avoidance of specific infringements.	Apple: summary judgment granted. Reliance on uploaders’ warranties plus takedown system precluded willfulness; plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute.
"Making-available" as distribution right	Making recordings or promotional clips available on iTunes constitutes distribution that infringes §106(3) even absent a sale.	Apple argued ‘‘making available’’ is not a cognizable independent theory of distribution under the Copyright Act.	Court: denied Apple’s motion — making-available can qualify as distribution; treaty, legislative history, Copyright Office guidance, and Ninth Circuit precedent support that view.
Ownership/chain of title to compositions	Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment that they own or control exclusive rights in the Subject Compositions; provided registrations, assignments, and termination notices.	Apple contested ownership for many works due to gaps/conflicts in chains of title and active state-court disputes for some Warren works.	Plaintiffs: summary judgment granted in part (ownership of 30 works and validity/embodiment granted); several works remain in dispute due to chain-of-title uncertainties or ongoing state litigation (Warren works).
Volitional conduct / direct infringement (liability)	Apple facilitated, selected, priced, and profited from distribution; its platform and policies make it the proximate cause of infringement.	Apple argues its actions (infrastructure, automated storage, reliance on uploaders) are non-volitional; uploads and instigation were performed by third-party distributors.	Summary judgment on infringement denied. Genuine disputes exist whether Apple’s conduct is sufficiently volitional to impose direct liability; issue for jury.

Key Cases Cited

VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 918 F.3d 723 (9th Cir.) (online-platform reliance on uploaders’ warranties and takedown procedures can preclude willfulness)
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir.) (willfulness standard includes actual knowledge or reckless disregard/willful blindness)
Luvdarts, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir.) (willful blindness elements explained)
Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc., 697 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir.) (reasonable good-faith belief of noninfringement precludes willfulness)
Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir.) (awareness of possible infringement and a reckless policy can support willfulness)
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.) (making files available in a searchable index can violate distribution right)
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir.) (elements of prima facie infringement and discussion of distribution/display issues)
Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.) (context on notice and willfulness analysis)
DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.) (exclusive rights can be transferred/separated and standing challenges)
Radio Television Espanola S.A. v. New World Ent., Ltd., 183 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.) (requirements for written transfers under §204)
Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc., 523 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (expert may not testify to legal conclusions or usurp court’s jury instructions)
Magnuson v. Video Yesteryear, 85 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir.) (memoranda of past agreements can suffice to prove chain-of-title)