Music Industry vs. X | Matt Connarton Unleashed

0:00 Speaker 1: This looks interesting. This is from Digital Musicnews dot Com.

0:03 Speaker 1: Music publishers x copyright lawsuit officially on pause following the

0:07 Speaker 1: Supreme Court's cos decision all Deadlines shelved as a social

0:12 Speaker 1: media platform eyes dismissal so recently on the show, was

0:16 Speaker 1: it last week? It was last week? Right? The Supreme Court,

0:21 Speaker 1: which you know, we live in a time where I

0:23 Speaker 1: don't necessarily agree with a lot of the rulings. We

0:25 Speaker 1: won't get into that, but they got that one right,

0:27 Speaker 1: in my opinion, they ruled that an Internet service provider

0:31 Speaker 1: cannot be held liable for what its users do in

0:34 Speaker 1: terms of.

0:35 Speaker 2: That would have been grotesquely awful of it.

0:37 Speaker 1: In terms of in terms of yeah, in terms of

0:40 Speaker 1: downloading pirated music and so forth. But looks like, uh,

0:46 Speaker 1: looks like that might uh well.

0:48 Speaker 2: That could knock the stuff out of the water. That's yeah,

0:51 Speaker 2: Ben pending people who have been trying to.

0:54 Speaker 1: Yeah, So there's a news story here. So according to this,

0:58 Speaker 1: the presiding judge may made the pause official. Oh wait,

1:03 Speaker 1: let me back up. Major music publishers long running copyright

1:06 Speaker 1: infringement lawsuit against x so x, of course being formerly Twitter,

1:11 Speaker 1: is now on a hard pause. Following the Supreme Court's

1:13 Speaker 1: Cox versus Sony Music decision, which is the case that

1:16 Speaker 1: I was talking about last week. And by the way,

1:19 Speaker 1: that wasn't just Sony Music, but UMG was involved in

1:23 Speaker 1: that lawsuit as well as other labels. But okay, so

1:26 Speaker 1: this says the presiding judge made that pause official in

1:28 Speaker 1: a recent order after the publishers and the Elon Musk

1:31 Speaker 1: owned social platform asked the court to stay all current deadlines.

1:36 Speaker 1: And the stay request didn't come out of left field,

1:39 Speaker 1: as we previously broke down. The Supreme Court, in a

1:42 Speaker 1: unanimous re unanimous ruling in favor of Cox Communications, the

1:47 Speaker 1: internet service provider that was in the other lawsuit, found

1:51 Speaker 1: that service providers can be held contributorily liable only if

1:58 Speaker 1: they induced user infringement or tailored their core offerings to

2:02 Speaker 1: enable infringement. And by the way, that's one of the

2:04 Speaker 1: reasons I said I agreed with the Supreme Court's unanimous

2:07 Speaker 1: ruling in that case because to me, and the analogy

2:11 Speaker 1: I used is holding internet service provider is responsible for

2:15 Speaker 1: everything that their users do. That would be akin to

2:19 Speaker 1: holding auto manufacturers responsible every time somebody gets into a

2:24 Speaker 1: car accident where somebody accidentally gets killed on the highway.

2:27 Speaker 1: You know, oh, you created a product that was used

2:31 Speaker 1: in this accident. Therefore you are responsible. You know it's absurd,

2:35 Speaker 1: So I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling says here Naturally,

2:38 Speaker 1: the decisions significance for similar isp repeat piracy cases took

2:43 Speaker 1: center stage out of the gate, but the narrow secondary

2:46 Speaker 1: liability definition is already factoring into a number of copyright

2:50 Speaker 1: cases in and beyond the music world. One of the

2:55 Speaker 1: non music cases textbook publishers copyright and trademark infringement show

3:00 Speaker 1: down with Google, which promptly moved to stay discovery depending

3:04 Speaker 1: the resolution of the Cos versus Sony related motion for

3:08 Speaker 1: partial judgment. Enter exis push to toss the remainder of

3:13 Speaker 1: publishers infringement claims due to the perceived lack of secondary liability.

3:18 Speaker 1: So if I'm understanding this correctly, and again I'm not

3:20 Speaker 1: a legal expert of any kind, But if I understand

3:22 Speaker 1: this correctly, so the argument from X is that, Okay,

3:28 Speaker 1: you're not going to hold Cox Communications responsible. You also

3:31 Speaker 1: cannot hold X responsible for what our users do on

3:35 Speaker 1: our platform if they are infringing on copyright. And again

3:40 Speaker 1: I would agree. You know, I'm not a big fan

3:42 Speaker 1: of Elon Musk, but again I would agree with with

3:45 Speaker 1: that argument. You should not this. This has come up,

3:48 Speaker 1: but this has been coming up for years, by the way,

3:50 Speaker 1: in terms of social media platforms. This concept that some

3:54 Speaker 1: people really believe in that social media platforms should be

4:00 Speaker 1: somehow held responsible for everything that their users do, and

4:04 Speaker 1: that they should be held liable for that that everything

4:07 Speaker 1: that their users do on their platforms. And these social

4:10 Speaker 1: media platforms already police that stuff. But if you're going

4:15 Speaker 1: to make it so that these social media platforms are

4:19 Speaker 1: liable for every single thing that users do that might

4:23 Speaker 1: infringe on a copyright or or may break some law,

4:27 Speaker 1: or then or you will end you will end social media.

4:32 Speaker 2: Yeah, you say boo about somebody and suddenly there's a lawsuit.

4:36 Speaker 2: But the internet company is gonna heck of a lot

4:38 Speaker 2: more money than the average person. So if there's a

4:41 Speaker 2: street to their bank account, everybody's gonna get off and

4:44 Speaker 2: take it.

4:45 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, you would end social media if you're gonna

4:48 Speaker 1: hold you know, if you're gonna hold everything responsible for

4:51 Speaker 1: every little thing that people post.

4:52 Speaker 2: How does YouTube do do videos? Right? Because then if

4:57 Speaker 2: it's running on Exfinity. Exfinity is liable for everything gets

5:00 Speaker 2: played on YouTube.

5:01 Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, you can't. Yeah, you can't do it. You

5:03 Speaker 1: can't do it.

5:04 Speaker 2: Oh, every once in a while to get something right.

5:07 Speaker 1: Oh yeah, says here. It's against this backdrop. With a

5:10 Speaker 1: dismissal demand looming large, that both sides requested a stay

5:14 Speaker 1: of all deadlines in the current schedule so they could

5:17 Speaker 1: meet and confer regarding the appropriate next steps for this litigation,

5:21 Speaker 1: and with Judge Aletta Trauger having signed off on the

5:25 Speaker 1: request as mentioned, the litigants are expected to submit a

5:28 Speaker 1: joint schedule proposal by next Wednesday, April eighth, So this

5:32 Speaker 1: Wednesday coming up actually, besides addressing X's anticipated attempt to

5:37 Speaker 1: end the litigation, said schedule will cover the plaintiff's opposition

5:41 Speaker 1: and possible motions to amend the complaint and or seek

5:45 Speaker 1: reconsideration of the prior partial dismissal. On the latter front,

5:49 Speaker 1: it's been two years in change since the court dismissed

5:52 Speaker 1: vicarious and direct infringement claims against X, and while it's

5:57 Speaker 1: unclear what the reconsideration requests may look like, the possible

6:01 Speaker 1: descriptor is important here. The plaintiffs only indicated that they

6:05 Speaker 1: may file related motions. Time will tell where this definitive

6:10 Speaker 1: pause leads the year's running case and what's in store

6:14 Speaker 1: for other infringement disputes impacted by Cox versus Sony. As noted,

6:20 Speaker 1: different ISP disputes jump out. The major label suit against

6:24 Speaker 1: Altis was gearing up for a jury trial until being

6:27 Speaker 1: stayed pending the Supreme Court's determination. But so do complaints

6:31 Speaker 1: like Epidemic Sounds nearly four year old first copyright action

6:36 Speaker 1: against Meta. Last week, the Facebook parent formally moved to

6:41 Speaker 1: invoke Cox versus Sony into its summary judgment motion. The

6:45 Speaker 1: presiding judge granted the request, and Meta has until April

6:49 Speaker 1: sixteenth to file a supplemental brief addressing the impact of

6:53 Speaker 1: Cox communications, in other words, addressing the impact of that ruling.

6:57 Speaker 1: So the Supreme Court has effectively set a precedent here

7:01 Speaker 1: with their ruling and Cox versus Sony saying that you

7:05 Speaker 1: know you cannot hold you cannot hold Internet service providers,

7:09 Speaker 1: whether it be an ISP or perhaps whether it be

7:12 Speaker 1: a social media platform, you cannot hold them liable and

7:15 Speaker 1: responsible for every little thing that every user does on

7:18 Speaker 1: their platform that might be illegal or you know or

7:23 Speaker 1: maybe not necessarily illegally illegal, but might be something that

7:27 Speaker 1: might cause a civil action, you know, defaming someone's character,

7:31 Speaker 1: et cetera. And by the way, all these social media

7:33 Speaker 1: platforms already have rules against that kind of thing, but

7:37 Speaker 1: it's up to them to enforce them, and they're not

7:39 Speaker 1: always going to get it right, and sometimes they sometimes

7:43 Speaker 1: is almost an overcorrection, if that's the right term, because

7:46 Speaker 1: sometimes people get caught up in a net. You know,

7:49 Speaker 1: it's happened to me. I mean, I've run into problems

7:51 Speaker 1: with YouTube, not recently, not for a while, but I've

7:54 Speaker 1: run into problems with YouTube where I've been flagged for

7:56 Speaker 1: things in my YouTube videos where it's like, well, wait

7:59 Speaker 1: a minute, I'm being flagged for something I didn't too

8:01 Speaker 1: or I'm being flagged for saying something I'm not allowed

8:03 Speaker 1: to say on YouTube. But I wasn't saying it. I

8:05 Speaker 1: was actually quoting someone else who had said it, and

8:08 Speaker 1: I was using that as an example of what that

8:10 Speaker 1: person said. That particular thing has caught me a few

8:13 Speaker 1: times because they have the bots that patrol the videos,

8:16 Speaker 1: and then a bot hears me say something that again,

8:19 Speaker 1: it's not me saying it, it's me repeating something someone

8:21 Speaker 1: else said, and then I'm refuting it that exact thing

8:24 Speaker 1: has happened to me, and then YouTube flags it, and

8:27 Speaker 1: then I get a strike on my account, and then

8:29 Speaker 1: I have to appeal to strike, and da da da

8:31 Speaker 1: da da, and it's a whole thing. But I would

8:37 Speaker 1: not expect anyone as frustrated as I might get with YouTube.

8:39 Speaker 1: I would not expect there to be I would not

8:41 Speaker 1: expect YouTube to be legally liable for anything that I do.

8:49 Speaker 1: You know, whether I'm being held accountable for something I

8:51 Speaker 1: actually did or something that a bot has decided that

8:53 Speaker 1: I did. But I'm kind of vented a little bit

8:56 Speaker 1: about YouTube because I have gotten caught up in that net.

8:58 Speaker 1: But my point being, these social media companies already police

9:01 Speaker 1: that it's never going to be perfect, But we don't

9:05 Speaker 1: need laws or rulings in terms of civil penalties that

9:10 Speaker 1: hold them accountable for something that.

9:14 Speaker 2: You couldn't.

9:16 Speaker 1: It would be an unreasonable standard to hold any business

9:18 Speaker 1: or industry to that standard. It would be unreasonable