Generative AI music platform Suno has asked a federal court to throw out allegations made by the major record companies that it illegally ‘stream-ripped’ YouTube videos to train its AI.
In a filing with a federal court on Friday (October 3), lawyers for Suno said the latest addition to the record companies’ copyright infringement lawsuit is “a gambit to try to evade application of the fair use doctrine to Suno’s technology development process.”
Record labels owned by Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group are suing Suno for mass infringement of copyright, alleging the AI startup used copyrighted recordings without permission to train its AI.
Suno has defended itself by arguing that its use of copyrighted music to train AI counts as “fair use” under US law – something a few federal courts have recently agreed with, though other federal courts have rejected the idea.
Last month, the music companies filed a proposed amended complaint expanding the claims against Suno. They alleged that the AI company got its hands on the recordings by “stream-ripping” them from YouTube, i.e., by circumventing YouTube’s player window and downloading the files directly.
In its response to the new allegations, Suno didn’t deny “stream-ripping” music from YouTube; instead, the company’s lawyers argued that the practice is not illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
“The Court should deny leave to amend to add this new claim because it is futile.”
Suno, in a response to stream-ripping allegations
They argued that the relevant part of the DMCA bans circumventing access controls on copyrighted media, meaning technology designed to limit access only to certain people (for instance, paying subscribers), and not copy controls, meaning tech that prevents people from copying copyrighted material.
Because anyone can access music videos on YouTube, the issue can’t be a matter of access controls, but rather copy controls, Suno’s lawyers argued.
“The Court should deny leave to amend to add this new claim because it is futile,” stated Suno’s response, which can be read in full here.
The record companies’ stream-ripping allegations came in the wake of a ruling in another copyright case involving the training of AI. In a case brought by book authors against AI company Anthropic, a judge ruled earlier this year that Anthropic’s use of the copyrighted books was fair use – but the company’s use of online pirate libraries to obtain those books was not.
Faced with potentially large damages over its book piracy, Anthropic recently settled the case out of court and committed to a $1.5-billion payout to be shared among authors.
Meanwhile, the record majors expanded their lawsuits against Suno and another generative AI music platform, Udio, alleging that the companies violated copyright laws not only by using copyrighted songs without permission, but also by their methods of obtaining the content.
Suno’s lawyers argued in their filing that the record companies are trying to “interpose a new legal theory” in order to prevail in court despite a “burgeoning consensus that using copyrighted content to train AI models is perfectly lawful.”
Whether or not there is a “burgeoning consensus” that using copyrighted content without permission is fair use for AI developers is a matter of opinion. Despite two US federal court rulings, cited by Suno in its filing, at least one federal court has ruled that it does not count as fair use, leaving the matter up in the air.
Suno is also facing a class-action lawsuit over copyright infringement being led by country musician Tony Justice. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in that case have also amended their complaint, making similar allegations that Suno engaged in stream-ripping YouTube to obtain its training music.Music Business Worldwide
