By Blake Brittain, Reuters | The U.S. Supreme Court turned away on Monday a bid to revive a copyright infringement lawsuit accusing pop star Ed Sheeran of unlawfully copying from the late singer Marvin Gaye’s 1973 classic “Let’s Get It On” in his 2014 hit song “Thinking Out Loud.”
The justices declined to hear an appeal by Structured Asset Sales, a company owned by investment banker David Pullman that has a copyright interest in Gaye’s song, of a judge’s decision to dismiss the case. The company had sued Sheeran, his record label Warner Music and music publisher Sony Music Publishing, seeking monetary damages over alleged similarities between the two songs.
> > > > > > > > > >
(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)
Go here to read the rest of the SCOTUS’ decision:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/us-supreme-court-rejects-bid-to-revive-copyright-suit-over-ed-sheeran-hit-thinking-out-loud/
# # # # #
Major Labels Fire Back Against U.S. Government in Cox v. Sony Music Infringement Battle
By Ashley King, Digital Music News
Labels are “bewildered” by the US government’s view that an ISP isn’t automatically liable for not banning users for repeated copyright infringement.
The latest shot has been fired in the landmark ISP piracy liability showdown between Cox and major record labels spearheaded by Sony. The internet service provider has fought to find the law on its side after a Virginia court ordered the company to pay $1 billion in damages for not taking appropriate action against pirating subscribers.
Cox petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last year, arguing that an ISP shouldn’t be held liable for its subscribers committing piracy. It challenged the assertion that knowing about subscriber piracy constitutes “willful” copyright infringement. The Supreme Court showed interest in hearing the internet provider out, but asked the Government’s position on the matter before reaching a decision whether to take on the case.
Two weeks ago, the Solicitor General’s amicus brief was released, siding with Cox and urging the Supreme Court to grant the company’s position. Such a move is significant not just for Cox, but for other internet service providers as well as the broader public.
The U.S. Government’s stance finds that an ISP is not automatically liable for copyright infringement by failing to terminate subscriber accounts after receiving copyright infringement notices. Further, the brief argues that Cox’s actions did not constitute “willfulness,” which would require knowledge or reckless disregard that its subscribers’ conduct was unlawful. Merely knowing about third-party infringement does not qualify.
The Solicitor General also urged the Supreme Court to deny the record labels’ petition. Sony and the other labels involved argued that Cox should be held vicariously liable for copyright infringement, since it profited from piracy it could have worked to prevent.
Now, the record labels have issued a supplemental filing with the Supreme Court, in which they characterize the Solicitor General’s recommendation as “bewildering.” They argue that Cox’s liability is “straightforward” and doesn’t warrant Supreme Court interference in the first place because the ISP would face liability “in any jurisdiction.”
“Cox was held liable not because it failed to do enough to police infringement, but because it took no meaningful steps to stop infringement and continued serving specific, identifiable subscribers even after receiving explicit notice of their repeat (and often rampant) infringement,” the brief argues.
The labels insist that the evidence on record shows that Cox did willfully choose to let repeat infringement occur, because subscribers earn the company revenue. Cox did not, therefore, “meaningfully” implement a policy “for the termination in appropriate circumstances of repeat infringers.”
According to the labels, the lower courts have been very clear on liability cases, and there is “overwhelming evidence” of Cox’s willfulness—the ISP didn’t even contest that finding during its appeal.
“The Court should grant Sony’s petition and deny Cox’s. If the Court disagrees, it should grant both,” the brief concludes.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/major-labels-fire-back-against-u-s-government-in-cox-v-sony-music-infringement-battle/
This story originally appeared on Digital Music News.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/06/15/major-labels-fire-back-against-u-s-government-in-cox-v-sony/
# # # # #
Musician Slaps Suno and Udio With Infringement Class Actions Over ‘Intentional Theft of Millions of Songs Created by Independent Artists’
By Dylan Smith, Digital Music News
Country artist Tony Justice has fired off class actions against Suno and Udio, accusing the AI music startups of training on his works – and the works of other independent acts – without authorization.
The “Last of the Cowboys” creator and his 5th Wheel Records label just recently submitted the Suno action to a Massachusetts federal court; the complaint against Udio, on the other hand, is playing out in New York.
Though technically distinct, the similar 23-page suits begin by recapping the majors’ ongoing infringement litigation against the same defendants. According to Justice, those actions – which, incidentally, might be trending towards settlement – are leaving “independent artists, whose rights have been trampled the most…without a seat at the table.”
> > > > > > > >
Go here to read this article that may affect YOU:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/musician-slaps-suno-and-udio-with-infringement-class-actions-over-intentional-theft-of-millions-of-songs-created-by-independent-artists/
This story originally appeared on Digital Music News.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/06/17/suno-udio-class-actions/
# # # # #
SoundExchange is suing Napster and Sonos for over $3.4 million in allegedly unpaid copyright royalties related to the Sonos Radio service
By Ashley King, Digital Music News
Napster was once the face of online music piracy, but the brand came full circle after the rebranding of Rhapsody transformed it into a legal music streaming service. But now, together with audio giant Sonos, Napster is facing a lawsuit filed by SoundExchange seeking over $3.4 million in allegedly unpaid copyright royalties. The complaint centers on missed payments related to the Sonos Radio service, which was powered by Napster’s music catalog until 2023.
In a complaint filed in California federal court, SoundExchange is seeking over $3.4 million in “underpaid statutory copyright royalties” from both Sonos and Napster. Sonos Radio launched in April 2020 with Napster as the authorized agent submitting the required royalty reports and royalties to SoundExchange.
Things went well at first, but payments stopped around May 2022.
That’s around the time that Napster had been acquired by venture capital firms Hivemind and Algorand, with a focus on web3 technologies like cryptocurrencies. According to SoundExchange’s complaint, that acquisition had resulted in a “complete breakdown of reporting and payment for the Sonos Radio service.” The alleged payment issues were discovered during an audit by SoundExchange in 2023, which found that together, Sonos and Napster owed millions in unpaid royalties.
> > > > > > > > >
Go here to read the full story:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/06/17/soundexchange-sues-sonos-napster/