DMCA protections do not apply to pre-1972 sound recordings, court rules
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has shielded many a website from copyright infringement claims. But its protections do not extend to pre-1972 sound recordings, a New York state appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
April 24, 2013 at 08:51 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has shielded many a website from copyright infringement claims (YouTube, we're looking at you). But its protections do not extend to pre-1972 sound recordings, a New York state appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
The decision came as part of a lawsuit that Universal Music Group (UMG) filed against the online music-sharing service Grooveshark. UMG argued that Grooveshark violated copyright laws when it allowed users to share unlicensed music—such as “Johnny B. Goode” and “My Girl”—which were recorded before 1972.
In its defense, Grooveshark invoked the DMCA, which includes a safe harbor provision that shields online service providers from liability for infringing content posted by third-parties, provided that the websites immediately remove the offending material when notified of the infringement.
But the Appellate Division, First Department rejected this defense, overturning a lower court's decision in the process. The appeals court noted that the DMCA was passed as an amendment to the Copyright Act, which was changed in 1971 to extend to sound recordings. At the time of that 1971 amendment, the Copyright Act specifically stated that any sound recordings produced before Feb. 15, 1972 fell under state or common-law copyright protections, not federal copyright law.
Because the text of the DMCA does not explicitly extend its protections to these earlier recordings, the appeals court ruled, Grooveshark's “safe harbor” defense did not apply. “[I]t would be far more appropriate for Congress, if necessary, to amend the DMCA to clarify its intent, than for this court to do so by fiat,” the court wrote.
A lawyer for Escape Media Group, Grooveshark's parent company, told Thomson Reuters that the decision will “significantly undermine the safe harbor protections of [DMCA]” and that the company plans to appeal. The appeals court ruled only on Grooveshark's affirmative defense, not the underlying lawsuit.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of copyright infringement issues, see:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has shielded many a website from copyright infringement claims (YouTube, we're looking at you). But its protections do not extend to pre-1972 sound recordings, a
The decision came as part of a lawsuit that
In its defense, Grooveshark invoked the DMCA, which includes a safe harbor provision that shields online service providers from liability for infringing content posted by third-parties, provided that the websites immediately remove the offending material when notified of the infringement.
But the Appellate Division, First Department rejected this defense, overturning a lower court's decision in the process. The appeals court noted that the DMCA was passed as an amendment to the Copyright Act, which was changed in 1971 to extend to sound recordings. At the time of that 1971 amendment, the Copyright Act specifically stated that any sound recordings produced before Feb. 15, 1972 fell under state or common-law copyright protections, not federal copyright law.
Because the text of the DMCA does not explicitly extend its protections to these earlier recordings, the appeals court ruled, Grooveshark's “safe harbor” defense did not apply. “[I]t would be far more appropriate for Congress, if necessary, to amend the DMCA to clarify its intent, than for this court to do so by fiat,” the court wrote.
A lawyer for Escape Media Group, Grooveshark's parent company, told Thomson Reuters that the decision will “significantly undermine the safe harbor protections of [DMCA]” and that the company plans to appeal. The appeals court ruled only on Grooveshark's affirmative defense, not the underlying lawsuit.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of copyright infringement issues, see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250