Capitol Records, Inc. v. Mp3tunes, LLC
2011 WL 5104616, 821 F.Supp.2d 627 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a service provider that receives a takedown notice identifying specific URLs as sources of infringing content loses its safe harbor protection if it fails to remove copies of that content from users' private storage lockers when it has the technical ability to trace the stored content to the identified infringing URLs.
Facts:
- Michael Robertson founded MP3tunes, LLC, which operated MP3tunes.com, a personal online music storage or 'locker' service, and Sideload.com, a search engine for free online music.
- Users of Sideload.com could search for songs on third-party websites and, with a single click, copy or 'sideload' the song files directly into their private lockers on MP3tunes.com.
- MP3tunes' system tracked and stored the source URL for every song a user sideloaded into their locker.
- When a user sideloaded a song, the third-party website it came from was automatically added to Sideload.com's searchable index, expanding the catalog of available music.
- EMI sent MP3tunes takedown notices identifying hundreds of its copyrighted songs and the specific third-party URLs, indexed by Sideload.com, from which the songs were being illegally distributed.
- In response, MP3tunes removed the specified URLs from the Sideload.com search index.
- MP3tunes did not remove the actual infringing song files that its users had already sideloaded from those specific, identified URLs and were storing in their private MP3tunes.com lockers.
Procedural Posture:
- EMI, Inc. and several other music companies sued MP3tunes, LLC and Michael Robertson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging copyright infringement.
- Both the plaintiffs (EMI) and the defendants (MP3tunes and Robertson) filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The case is before the District Court for a ruling on these competing motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an online service provider lose its safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when, after receiving a takedown notice identifying specific infringing web addresses, it removes the public links to those addresses but fails to remove infringing content downloaded from those same addresses from its users' private storage lockers?
Opinions:
Majority - Pauley III, J.
Yes. An online service provider fails to 'respond expeditiously to remove' infringing material as required by the DMCA, and thus loses its safe harbor protection for that material, when it fails to remove infringing files from users' private storage after receiving a takedown notice that provides sufficient information to locate those files. The court reasoned that EMI's takedown notices, which identified the specific URLs from which infringing songs were copied, provided MP3tunes with information 'reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material' under § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii). Because MP3tunes' own system tracked the source URL of every sideloaded file in every user's locker, it had the ability to locate and remove the specific infringing files. By only removing the public-facing links on Sideload.com and allowing users to continue storing and accessing the infringing copies, MP3tunes did not meet its takedown obligation for that specific content. The court also held MP3tunes contributorily liable for the songs it failed to remove, because it had actual knowledge of the infringement from the notices and provided the 'site and facility' (its servers) for the ongoing infringing activity.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a service provider's takedown obligations under the DMCA, particularly for cloud storage and locker services. It establishes that the duty to 'remove, or disable access to, the material' is not limited to public links but extends to content in private user accounts if the provider has the technical means and sufficient information from the notice to identify and locate that specific content. The ruling increases the compliance burden on service providers that track the provenance of user-uploaded files, preventing them from claiming ignorance about infringing content in private storage once its source has been identified. This precedent makes it harder for such services to serve as passive repositories for pirated material and strengthens the enforcement power of copyright holders' takedown notices.
