Federal Court in Tennessee Advances Copyright Infringement Claims Against X

The X logo in an illustration created on July 24, 2023. (Dado Ruvic/Reuters)

A court order will allow some copyright infringement complaints against X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, by some of the largest music publishers in the industry to proceed. Judge Aleta Trauger also dismissed some of the original complaints against the company.

In a detailed memorandum, the court partially granted and partially denied X Corp.’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement case brought against it by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, representing publishers of thousands of claimed musical compositions, have accused X Corp. of indirectly enabling copyright infringement on its social media platform, where users frequently share copyright-protected work without permission.

The case touches on the broader issue of copyright infringement on online platforms, a problem Congress aimed to address through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and has struggled to keep up with in years since.

The music publishers argue that X, which started as a platform for text-based messages, has evolved into a hub for multimedia content, especially music videos.

Unlike other social media companies that have secured licensing agreements with rights holders, X is accused of circumventing these costs, profiting from content it hasn’t paid to license.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court dismissed the claim of direct infringement by X Corp., concluding that the platform itself did not transmit copyrighted material but merely provided the means for users to do so. This distinction places X more in the role of a carrier, similar to a phone company, than a broadcaster or viewer of copyrighted content.

Related Stories

Music Publishers Sue Twitter for $250 Million Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

6/15/2023

Former Twitter Execs File Lawsuit Against Musk and X for $128 Million in Severance

3/4/2024

The court also dismissed the vicarious infringement claim, reasoning that X Corp. did not have the level of control over its users that is typically required for such a claim. The decision underscores the legal distinction between providing a service that could be misused for infringement and actively controlling or profiting from such infringement.

However, the court found grounds to continue exploring contributory infringement claims, specifically the allegations that X Corp. provided more lenient copyright enforcement to verified users, was slow to act on takedown notices, and failed to adequately address repeat infringers, which could constitute contributory infringement.

The mixed ruling reflects the nuanced legal landscape surrounding copyright infringement on digital platforms and highlights the challenges of balancing the rights of copyright holders with the realities of modern technology and social media.

Origin of the Suit

The lawsuit was filed last summer in Nashville, Tennessee, on behalf of the publishing powerhouses that call “Music City” (Nashville) their home.

The plaintiffs sought more than $250 million in damages and injunctive relief for what they called X’s “willful copyright infringement.”

“Twitter fuels its business with countless infringing copies of musical compositions, violating Publishers’ and others’ exclusive rights under copyright law,” the original complaint reads. “While numerous Twitter competitors recognize the need for proper licenses and agreements for the use of musical compositions on their platforms, Twitter does not, and instead breeds massive copyright infringement that harms music creators.”

The plaintiffs went on to state that the social media platform, which was purchased by billionaire Elon Musk a year prior for $44 billion, is “rife with copyright infringement,” noting that this had also been the case before Mr. Musk took over.

“Twitter has engaged in, knowingly facilitated, and profited from copyright infringement, at the expense of music creators, to whom Twitter pays nothing,” they wrote, noting that there is a “vibrant existing market for social media companies to pay fees for the use of musical compositions.”

The plaintiffs further claimed that other social media companies, including TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat, have entered into agreements with publishers and other rights holders to compensate creators for their musical work.

They noted that they believe that the rampant use of music on the platform allows the company to “profit handsomely” from infringement of the publishers’ “repertoires of musical compositions.”

The lawsuit comes after the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), an organization representing the recording industry’s interests, stated in February 2022 that Twitter remains a “significant concern to the music industry.”

“Twitter stores and gives the public access to a large amount of copyright-protected content and is a major platform for distributing infringing music content, both audio, and video,” the IFPI said in an EU Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist submission at the time.

The suit noted that their notices to Twitter regarding infringing content had “risen” over the past several years, with Twitter/X “choosing to significantly reduce several of its critical departments involved with content review and policing terms of service violations, including both the legal and the trust and safety teams.”

X responded to a request by The Epoch Times for comment on the lawsuit updates with, “Busy now, please check back later.”

Katabella Roberts contributed to this report.