Policy – Page 37

Spotify criticized for letting fake albums appear on real artist pages

fraud, Policy, Spotify, streaming fraud, Streaming Music / Shannon Garcia / October 15, 2024

Will the real Spotify artist please stand up?

Real bands struggle to remove fake albums from their Spotify pages.

Psych rock band Gong found out about a fake album on their Spotify page while on tour. Credit: via Gong

This fall, thousands of fake albums were added to Spotify, with some appearing on real artist pages, where they’re positioned to lure unsuspecting listeners into streaming by posing as new releases from favorite bands.

An Ars reader flagged the issue after finding a fake album on the Spotify page of an UK psych rock band called Gong. The Gong fan knew that the band had begun touring again after a surprise new release last year, but the “latest release” listed by Spotify wasn’t that album. Instead, at the top of Gong’s page was a fake self-titled album supposedly released in 2024.

The real fan detected the fake instantly, and not just because the generic electronic music sounded nothing like Gong’s experimental sounds. The album’s cover also gave the scheme away, using a generic font and neon stock image that invoked none of the trippy imagery that characterized Gong’s typical album covers.

Ars confirmed with Gong member Dave Sturt that the self-titled item was an obvious fake on Monday. At that time, Sturt said the band was working to get the junk album removed from its page, but as of Tuesday morning, that album remained online, along with hundreds of other albums uploaded by a fake label that former Spotify data “alchemist” Glenn McDonald flagged in a social media post that Spotify seemingly ignored.

Hey @Spotify, you got thousands of junk albums with real artist names from “Ancient Lake Records”, “Beat Street Music” and “Gupta Music” today.

— glenn mcdonald (@glenn_mcdonald) October 11, 2024

On his site, McDonald gathered the junk album data by label, noting that Beat Street Music, which has no web presence but released the fake Gong album, uploaded 240 junk albums on Friday alone. Similarly, Ancient Lake Records uploaded 471 albums on Friday. And Gupta Music added 483 just a few days prior, along with 600 junk albums from Future Jazz Records uploaded between September 30 and October 8.

These junk albums don’t appear to be specifically targeting popular artists, McDonald told Ars. Rather, generic music is uploaded under a wide range of one-word artist names. However, by using that tactic, some of these fake albums appeared on real artist pages, such as Gong, experimental rock band Swans, and English rock bands Asia and Yes. And that oversight is on Spotify, McDonald suggested.

“Given the scale of output and the randomness of the names, my guess is that the owners of this stuff might not even have intended it to end up on existing artist profiles,” McDonald told Ars. “If they just submitted stuff with artist names, not IDs, then it’s the streaming service’s problem to match those names to profiles, and thus the streaming service’s fault for not figuring out that these are not by the real Yes, Asia, Gong, Swans, etc.”

McDonald told Ars that “the labels should have been a pretty obvious clue in this case” that the album uploads weren’t genuine releases.

“If I still worked there, I would also have immediately scoured the input databases for more releases with the same patterns,” McDonald told Ars. “The stuff I found from those few labels might be only a tiny fraction of the crap.”

A spokesperson told Ars that Spotify is investigating the junk albums that McDonald flagged. It may take time for all albums to be removed from artists’ pages.

“We are aware of the issue, have relocated the content in question, and are considering our further options against the providing licensor,” Spotify’s spokesperson said. “When we identify or are alerted to attempts by bad actors to game the system, we take action that may include removing stream counts and withholding royalties. Spotify invests heavily in automated and manual reviews to prevent, detect, and mitigate the impact of bad actors attempting to collect unearned royalties.”

Spotify seems to turn blind eye to fake albums

McDonald helped Spotify crunch streaming data for a decade before leaving the company in March. He documented his experience in his 2024 book You Have Not Yet Heard Your Favourite Song, which discusses how Spotify deals with streaming fraud.

According to McDonald, “streaming music fraud is not, to be brutally honest, the most glamorous or profitable form of villainy” because “streaming rewards accumulate in tiny micro-transactions.” The only way to get rich is to scale the shady streaming by becoming a business—it seems possible due to similarities in thousands of fake album designs that all the labels McDonald flagged could be under one licensor—but even then, “the larger the scale, the easier it is to detect,” McDonald suggested.

“Abuse at any productive scale almost always ends up revealing itself to somebody,” McDonald wrote, noting that “if the money can find you, so can consequences.”

McDonald told Ars that when he worked at Spotify, he “maintained some dashboards to watch for this sort of thing before the releases went live.” But with so much fraud seemingly going undetected now, McDonald guesses that maybe Spotify “didn’t keep those tools running” after he left.

In his book, McDonald noted that this kind of fraud impacting real artists is often detected by fans, like the Gong fan who reached out to Ars. On Reddit, a fan of dubstep artist Cyclops and soul band Maze criticized Spotify for doing nothing about the same batch of fraudulent uploads that McDonald flagged, despite multiple fan reports.

“If dubious junk shows up on real artist pages, people notice,” McDonald wrote.

In his book, McDonald suggested that the odds of profiting from music streaming fraud have seemingly gotten worse because of authorities cracking down on bad actors and streaming services strengthening fraud prevention teams as generative AI makes streaming music fraud easier than ever.

But even with stronger fraud prevention tools, Spotify seemingly does not immediately respond even when junk albums are flagged directly by artists with tens of thousands of monthly listeners, like Gong. And Spotify also does not seem to bother to trace reported fakes the way McDonald might have to rapidly detect even broader patterns of abuse impacting bands with millions of monthly listeners like Yes or Asia.

Spotify currently seems much quicker to act to detect fake listeners—at times removing music by artists who later prove they committed no fraud, Variety reported in April. To deter that threat, the streaming music service recently started charging “distributors $10 for every track that it has detected accruing significant numbers of artificial streams,” Variety reported. Perhaps eventually, Spotify will crack down just as hard on fake albums.

For now, artists can use a form to report when their music is “mixed up with another artist,” a Spotify support page says.

But there’s no obvious way to flag fake albums on the platform. Sturt told Ars that Gong became aware of the issue on their Spotify page in the middle of a US tour, thanks to “wonderful fans.” He said that Spotify should make it easier for bands to report bogus albums, telling Ars, “it’s hard enough in this industry to get our music heard without Spotify allowing this sort of thing to happen.” As Gong prepares for a new release in 2025, the band recommended that fans consult its site for official information rather than trusting Spotify.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Spotify criticized for letting fake albums appear on real artist pages Read More »

Expert witness used Copilot to make up fake damages, irking judge

Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, copilot, expert witness, generative ai, microsoft, Policy / Beth Washington / October 14, 2024

Judge calls for a swift end to experts secretly using AI to sway cases.

A New York judge recently called out an expert witness for using Microsoft’s Copilot chatbot to inaccurately estimate damages in a real estate dispute that partly depended on an accurate assessment of damages to win.

In an order Thursday, judge Jonathan Schopf warned that “due to the nature of the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and its inherent reliability issues” that any use of AI should be disclosed before testimony or evidence is admitted in court. Admitting that the court “has no objective understanding as to how Copilot works,” Schopf suggested that the legal system could be disrupted if experts started overly relying on chatbots en masse.

His warning came after an expert witness, Charles Ranson, dubiously used Copilot to cross-check calculations in a dispute over a $485,000 rental property in the Bahamas that had been included in a trust for a deceased man’s son. The court was being asked to assess if the executrix and trustee—the deceased man’s sister—breached her fiduciary duties by delaying the sale of the property while admittedly using it for personal vacations.

To win, the surviving son had to prove that his aunt breached her duties by retaining the property, that her vacations there were a form of self-dealing, and that he suffered damages from her alleged misuse of the property.

It was up to Ranson to figure out how much would be owed to the son had the aunt sold the property in 2008 compared to the actual sale price in 2022. But Ranson, an expert in trust and estate litigation, “had no relevant real estate expertise,” Schopf said, finding that Ranson’s testimony was “entirely speculative” and failed to consider obvious facts, such as the pandemic’s impact on rental prices or trust expenses like real estate taxes.

Seemingly because Ranson didn’t have the relevant experience in real estate, he turned to Copilot to fill in the blanks and crunch the numbers. The move surprised Internet law expert Eric Goldman, who told Ars that “lawyers retain expert witnesses for their specialized expertise, and it doesn’t make any sense for an expert witness to essentially outsource that expertise to generative AI.”

“If the expert witness is simply asking a chatbot for a computation, then the lawyers could make that same request directly without relying on the expert witness (and paying the expert’s substantial fees),” Goldman suggested.

Perhaps the son’s legal team wasn’t aware of how big a role Copilot played. Schopf noted that Ranson couldn’t recall what prompts he used to arrive at his damages estimate. The expert witness also couldn’t recall any sources for the information he took from the chatbot and admitted that he lacked a basic understanding of how Copilot “works or how it arrives at a given output.”

Ars could not immediately reach Ranson for comment. But in Schopf’s order, the judge wrote that Ranson defended using Copilot as a common practice for expert witnesses like him today.

“Ranson was adamant in his testimony that the use of Copilot or other artificial intelligence tools, for drafting expert reports is generally accepted in the field of fiduciary services and represents the future of analysis of fiduciary decisions; however, he could not name any publications regarding its use or any other sources to confirm that it is a generally accepted methodology,” Schopf wrote.

Goldman noted that Ranson relying on Copilot for “what was essentially a numerical computation was especially puzzling because of generative AI’s known hallucinatory tendencies, which makes numerical computations untrustworthy.”

Because Ranson was so bad at explaining how Copilot works, Schopf took the extra time to actually try to use Copilot to generate the estimates that Ranson got—and he could not.

Each time, the court entered the same query into Copilot—”Can you calculate the value of $250,000 invested in the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund from December 31, 2004 through January 31, 2021?”—and each time Copilot generated a slightly different answer.

This “calls into question the reliability and accuracy of Copilot to generate evidence to be relied upon in a court proceeding,” Schopf wrote.

Chatbot not to blame, judge says

While the court was experimenting with Copilot, they also probed the chatbot for answers to a more Big Picture legal question: Are Copilot’s responses accurate enough to be cited in court?

The court found that Copilot had less faith in its outputs than Ranson seemingly did. When asked “are you accurate” or “reliable,” Copilot responded that “my accuracy is only as good as my sources, so for critical matters, it’s always wise to verify.” When more specifically asked, “Are your calculations reliable enough for use in court,” Copilot similarly recommended that outputs “should always be verified by experts and accompanied by professional evaluations before being used in court.”

Although it seemed clear that Ranson did not verify outputs before using them in court, Schopf noted that at least “developers of the Copilot program recognize the need for its supervision by a trained human operator to verify the accuracy of the submitted information as well as the output.”

Microsoft declined Ars’ request to comment.

Until a bright-line rule exists telling courts when to accept AI-generated testimony, Schopf suggested that courts should require disclosures from lawyers to stop chatbot-spouted inadmissible testimony from disrupting the legal system.

“The use of artificial intelligence is a rapidly growing reality across many industries,” Schopf wrote. “The mere fact that artificial intelligence has played a role, which continues to expand in our everyday lives, does not make the results generated by artificial intelligence admissible in Court.”

Ultimately, Schopf found that there was no breach of fiduciary duty, negating the need for Ranson’s Copilot-cribbed testimony on damages in the Bahamas property case. Schopf denied all of the son’s objections in their entirety (as well as any future claims) after calling out Ranson’s misuse of the chatbot at length.

But in his order, the judge suggested that Ranson seemed to get it all wrong before involving the chatbot.

“Whether or not he was retained and/ or qualified as a damages expert in areas other than fiduciary duties, his testimony shows that he admittedly did not perform a full analysis of the problem, utilized an incorrect time period for damages, and failed to consider obvious elements into his calculations, all of which go against the weight and credibility of his opinion,” Schopf wrote.

Schopf noted that the evidence showed that rather than the son losing money from his aunt’s management of the trust—which Ranson’s cited chatbot’s outputs supposedly supported—the sale of the property in 2022 led to “no attributable loss of capital” and “in fact, it generated an overall profit to the Trust.”

Goldman suggested that Ranson did not seemingly spare much effort by employing Copilot in a way that seemed to damage his credibility in court.

“It would not have been difficult for the expert to pull the necessary data directly from primary sources, so the process didn’t even save much time—but that shortcut came at the cost of the expert’s credibility,” Goldman told Ars.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Expert witness used Copilot to make up fake damages, irking judge Read More »

The Internet Archive and its 916 billion saved web pages are back online

Biz & IT, Internet Archive, Policy, wayback machine / DJ Henderson / October 14, 2024

Last week, hackers defaced the Internet Archive website with a message that said, “Have you ever felt like the Internet Archive runs on sticks and is constantly on the verge of suffering a catastrophic security breach? It just happened. See 31 million of you on HIBP!”

HIBP is a reference to Have I Been Pwned, which was created by security researcher Troy Hunt and provides information and notifications on data breaches. The hacked Internet Archive data was sent to Have I Been Pwned and “contains authentication information for registered members, including their email addresses, screen names, password change timestamps, Bcrypt-hashed passwords, and other internal data,” BleepingComputer wrote.

Kahle said on October 9 that the Internet Archive fended off a DDoS attack and was working on upgrading security in light of the data breach and website defacement. The next day, he reported that the “DDoS folks are back” and had knocked the site offline. The Internet Archive “is being cautious and prioritizing keeping data safe at the expense of service availability,” he added.

“Services are offline as we examine and strengthen them… Estimated Timeline: days, not weeks,” he wrote on October 11. “Thank you for the offers of pizza (we are set).”

The Internet Archive and its 916 billion saved web pages are back online Read More »

Ex-Twitter execs push for $200M severance as Elon Musk runs X into ground

elon musk, Policy, severance, Twitter, wrongful termination, X, x corp / Mike M. / October 11, 2024

Musk’s battle with former Twitter execs intensifies as X value reaches new low.

Former Twitter executives, including former CEO Parag Agrawal, are urging a court to open discovery in a dispute over severance and other benefits they allege they were wrongfully denied after Elon Musk took over Twitter in 2022.

According to the former executives, they’ve been blocked for seven months from accessing key documents proving they’re owed roughly $200 million under severance agreements that they say Musk willfully tried to avoid paying in retaliation for executives forcing him to close the Twitter deal. And now, as X’s value tanks lower than ever—reportedly worth 80 percent less than when Musk bought it—the ex-Twitter leaders fear their severance claims “may be compromised” by Musk’s alleged “mismanagement of X,” their court filing said.

The potential for X’s revenue loss to impact severance claims appears to go beyond just the former Twitter executives’ dispute. According to their complaint, “there are also thousands of non-executive former employees whom Musk terminated and is now refusing to pay severance and other benefits” and who have “sued in droves.”

In some of these other severance suits, executives claimed in their motion to open discovery, X appears to be operating more transparently, allowing discovery to proceed beyond what has been possible in the executives’ suit.

But Musk allegedly has “special ire” for Agrawal and other executives who helped push through the Twitter buyout that he tried to wriggle out of, executives claimed. And seemingly because of his alleged anger, X has “only narrowed the discovery” ever since the court approved a stay pending a ruling on X’s motion to drop one of the executives’ five claims. According to the executives, the court only approved the stay of discovery because it was expecting to rule on the motion to dismiss quickly, but after a hearing on that matter was vacated, the stay has remained, helping X’s alleged goal to prolong the litigation.

To get the litigation back on track for a speedier resolution before Musk runs X into the ground, the executives on Thursday asked the court to approve discovery on all claims except the claim disputed in the motion to dismiss.

“Discovery on those topics is inevitable, and there is no reason to further delay,” the executives argued.

The executives have requested that the court open discovery at a hearing scheduled for November 15 to prevent further delays that they fear could harm their severance claims.

Neither X nor a lawyer for the former Twitter executives, David Anderson, could immediately be reached for comment.

X’s fight to avoid severance payments

In their complaint, the former Twitter executives—including Agrawal as well as former Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal, former Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde, and former general counsel Sean Edgett—alleged that Musk planned to deny their severance to make them pay for extra costs that they approved that clinched the Twitter deal.

They claimed that Musk told his official biographer, Walter Isaacson, that he would “hunt every single one of” them “till the day they die,” vowing “a lifetime of revenge.” Musk supposedly even “bragged” to Isaacson about “specifically how he planned to cheat Twitter’s executives out of their severance benefits in order to save himself $200 million.”

Under their severance agreements, the executives could only be denied benefits if terminated for “cause” under specific conditions, they said, none of which allegedly applied to their abrupt firings the second the merger agreement was signed.

“‘Cause’ under the severance plans is limited to extremely narrow circumstances, such as being convicted of a felony or committing ‘gross negligence’ or ‘willful misconduct,'” their complaint noted.

Musk attempted to “manufacture” “ever-changing theories of cause,” they claimed, partly by claiming that “success” fees paid to the law firm that defeated Musk’s suit attempting to go back on the deal constituted “gross negligence” or “willful misconduct.”

According to Musk’s motion to dismiss, the former executives tried to “saddle Twitter, and by extension the many investors who acquired it, with exorbitant legal expenses by forcing approximately $100 million in gratuitous payments to certain law firms in the final hours before the Twitter acquisition closed.” Musk had a huge problem with this, the motion to dismiss said, because the fees were paid despite his objections.

On top of that, Musk considered it “gross negligence” or “willful misconduct” that the executives allegedly paid out retention bonuses that Musk also opposed. And perhaps even more egregiously, they allowed new employees to jump onto severance plans shortly before the acquisition, which “generally” increased the “severance benefits available to these individuals by more than $50 million dollars,” Musk’s motion to dismiss said.

Musk was particularly frustrated by the addition of one employee who allegedly “already decided to terminate and another who was allowed to add herself to one of the Plans—a naked conflict of interest that increased her potential compensation by approximately $15 million.”

But former Twitter executives said they consulted with the board to approve the law firm fees, defending their business decisions as “in the best interest of the company,” not “Musk’s whims.”

“On the morning” Musk acquired Twitter, “the Company’s full Board met,” the executives’ complaint said. “One of the directors noted that it was the largest stockholder value creation by a legal team that he had ever seen. The full Board deliberated and decided to approve the fees.”

Further, they pointed out, “the lion’s share” of those legal fees “was necessitated only by Musk’s improper refusal to close a transaction to which he was contractually bound.”

“If Musk felt that the attorneys’ fees payments, or any other payments, were improper, his remedy was to seek to terminate the deal—not to withhold executives’ severance payments,” their complaint said.

Reimbursement or reinstatement may be sought

To force Musk’s hand, executives have been asking X to share documents, including documents they either created or received while working out the Twitter buyout. But X has delayed production—sometimes curiously claiming that documents are confidential even when executives authored the documents or they’ve been publicly filed in other severance disputes, executives alleged.

Executives have called Musk’s denial of severance “a pointless effort that would not withstand legal scrutiny,” but so far discovery in their lawsuit has not even technically begun. While X has handed over incomplete submissions from its administrative process denying the severance claims, in some cases, X has “entirely refused” to produce documents, they claimed.

They’re hoping once fact-finding concludes that the court will agree that severance benefits are due. That potentially includes stock vested at the price of Twitter on the day that Musk acquired it, $44 billion—a far cry from the $9 billion that X is estimated to be valued at today.

In a filing opposing Musk’s motion to dismiss, the former executives noted that they’re not required to elect their remedies at this stage of the litigation. While their complaint alleged they’re owed vested stock at the acquisition value of $44 billion, their other filing suggested that “reinstatement is also an available remedy.”

Neither option would likely appeal to Musk, who appears determined to fight all severance disputes while scrambling for nearly two years to reverse X’s steady revenue loss.

Since his firing, Agrawal has won at least one of his legal battles with Musk, forcing X to reimburse him for $1.1 million in legal fees. But Musk has largely avoided paying severance as lawsuits pile up, and Agrawal is allegedly owed the most, with his severance package valued at $57 million.

Last fall, X agreed to negotiate with thousands of laid-off employees, but those talks fell through without a settlement reached. In June, Musk defeated one severance suit that alleged that Musk owed former Twitter employees $500 million. But employees involved in that litigation can appeal or join other disputes, the judge noted.

For executives, a growing fear is seemingly that Musk will prolong litigation until X goes under. Last year, Musk bragged that he saved X from bankruptcy by cutting costs, but experts warned that lawsuits piling up from vendors—which Plainsite is tracking here—could upend that strategy if Musk loses too many.

“Under Musk’s control, Twitter has become a scofflaw, stiffing employees, landlords, vendors, and others,” executives’ complaint said. “Musk doesn’t pay his bills, believes the rules don’t apply to him, and uses his wealth and power to run roughshod over anyone who disagrees with him.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Ex-Twitter execs push for $200M severance as Elon Musk runs X into ground Read More »

5th Circuit rules ISP should have terminated Internet users accused of piracy

ISP Grande loses appeal as 5th Circuit sides with Universal, Warner, and Sony.

Illustration of a laptop with the skull-and-crossbones pirate symbol on the screen.

Credit: Getty Images | natatravel

Music publishing companies notched another court victory against a broadband provider that refused to terminate the accounts of Internet users accused of piracy. In a ruling on Wednesday, the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with the big three record labels against Grande Communications, a subsidiary of Astound Broadband.

The appeals court ordered a new trial on damages because it said the $46.8 million award was too high, but affirmed the lower court’s finding that Grande is liable for contributory copyright infringement.

“Here, Plaintiffs [Universal, Warner, and Sony] proved at trial that Grande knew (or was willfully blind to) the identities of its infringing subscribers based on Rightscorp’s notices, which informed Grande of specific IP addresses of subscribers engaging in infringing conduct. But Grande made the choice to continue providing services to them anyway, rather than taking simple measures to prevent infringement,” said the unanimous ruling by three judges.

Rightscorp is a copyright-enforcement company used by the music labels to detect copyright infringement. The company monitors torrent downloads to find users’ IP addresses and sends infringement notices to Internet providers that serve subscribers using those IP addresses.

“The evidence at trial demonstrated that Grande had a simple measure available to it to prevent further damages to copyrighted works (i.e., terminating repeat infringing subscribers), but that Grande never took it,” the 5th Circuit ruling said. “On appeal, Grande and its amici make a policy argument—that terminating Internet services is not a simple measure, but instead a ‘draconian overreaction’ that is a ‘drastic and overbroad remedy’—but a reasonable jury could, and did, find that Grande had basic measures, including termination, available to it. And because Grande does not dispute any of the evidence on which Plaintiffs relied to prove material contribution, there is no basis to conclude a reasonable jury lacked sufficient evidence to reach that conclusion.”

Grande’s pre-lawsuit policy: No terminations

The ruling described how Grande implemented a new policy on copyright infringement in 2010, a year after being purchased by a private equity firm:

Under Grande’s new policy, Grande no longer terminated subscribers for copyright infringement, no matter how many infringement notices Grande received. As Grande’s corporate representative at trial admitted, Grande “could have received a thousand notices about a customer, and it would not have terminated that customer for copyright infringement.”

Further, under Grande’s new policy, Grande did not take other remedial action to address infringing subscribers, such as suspending their accounts or requiring them to contact Grande to maintain their services. Instead, Grande would notify subscribers of copyright infringement complaints through letters that described the nature of the complaint and possible causes and advised that any infringing conduct is unlawful and should cease. Grande maintained that policy for nearly seven years, until May 2017.

The record labels sued Grande in April 2017. “It was not until after Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit that Grande resumed terminating subscribers for copyright infringement,” the ruling said.

In November 2022, the labels were awarded $46,766,200 in statutory damages by a jury in US District Court for the Western District of Texas. But the District Court will have to hold a new damages trial following this week’s appeals court ruling.

Back in 2020, we wrote about the voir dire questions that record labels intended to ask prospective jurors in their case against Grande. One of those questions was, “Have you ever read or visited Ars Technica or TorrentFreak?”

Damages to be reduced

Although the 5th Circuit agreed that Grande is liable for contributory copyright infringement, judges found that the lower court “erred in granting JMOL [judgment as a matter of law] that each of the 1,403 songs in suit was eligible for a separate award of statutory damages.” The damages were $33,333 per song.

The 5th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for a new trial on damages. Record labels can expect a lower payout because the appeals court said they can’t obtain separate damages awards for multiple songs on the same album.

“The district court determined that each of Plaintiffs’ 1,403 sound recordings that was infringed entitled Plaintiffs to an individual statutory damages award,” the 5th Circuit said. “Grande contends that the text of the Copyright Act requires a different result: Whenever more than one of those recordings appeared on the same album, Plaintiffs are entitled to only one statutory damages award for that album, regardless of how many individual recordings from the album were infringed. Grande has the better reading of the text of the statute.”

The Copyright Act says that “all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work,” the court said. In the Grande case, record labels sought damages for each song but conceded that “each album constitutes a compilation.”

“In sum, the record evidence indicates that many of the works in suit are compilations (albums) comprising individual works (songs),” the 5th Circuit court wrote. “The statute unambiguously instructs that a compilation is eligible for only one statutory damage award, whether or not its constituent works are separately copyrightable.”

Larger battle could head to Supreme Court

The Grande case is part of a larger battle between ISPs and copyright holders. The industries are waiting to learn whether the Supreme Court will take up a challenge by cable firm Cox Communications, which wants to overturn a ruling in a similar copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony.

The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed a jury’s finding that Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement, though it also vacated a $1 billion damages award because it found that “Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement.” Cox and other ISPs argue that copyright-infringement notices sent on behalf of record labels aren’t reliable and that forcing ISPs to disconnect users based on unproven piracy accusations will cause great harm.

A Supreme Court brief filed by Altice USA, Frontier Communications, Lumen (aka CenturyLink), and Verizon said the 4th Circuit ruling “imperils the future of the Internet” by “expos[ing] Internet service providers to massive liability if they do not carry out mass Internet evictions.” Cutting off a subscriber’s service would hurt other residents in a home “who did not infringe and may have no connection to the infringer,” they wrote.

Cox told the Supreme Court that ISPs “have no way of verifying whether a bot-generated notice is accurate. And no one can reliably identify the actual individual who used a particular Internet connection for an illegal download. The ISP could connect the IP address to a particular subscriber’s account, but the subscriber in question might be a university or a conference center with thousands of individual users on its network, or a grandmother who unwittingly left her Internet connection open to the public. Thus, the subscriber is often not the infringer and may not even know about the infringement.”

Cox asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the 4th Circuit “err[ed] in holding that a service provider can be held liable for ‘materially contributing’ to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it.”

Record labels also petitioned the Supreme Court because they want the original $1 billion verdict reinstated. Digital rights groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have backed Cox, saying that forcing ISPs to terminate subscribers accused of piracy “would result in innocent and vulnerable users losing essential Internet access.”

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

5th Circuit rules ISP should have terminated Internet users accused of piracy Read More »

Trump wants CBS license revoked; FCC chair explains that isn’t going to happen

Policy, trump cbs license / Kelly Newman / October 10, 2024

“The First Amendment and the Communications Act expressly prohibit the Commission from censoring broadcast matter,” the FCC website says. “Our role in overseeing program content is very limited. We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations that stations have relationships with, such as PBS or NPR, except if those entities are also station licensees.”

Trump’s call to punish CBS came about a month after he expressed anger at ABC News debate moderators by saying that ABC should have its license taken away. Rosenworcel criticized Trump in that instance as well.

Rerun from 2017

In October 2017, when Trump was president, he criticized NBC and wrote that “network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.” Democrats on the FCC and in Congress immediately rebuked Trump.

Then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican who was Trump’s selection to chair the agency, weighed in six days later. Pai didn’t make any direct reference to Trump, but said, “I believe in the First Amendment. The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment. And under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

Earlier this week, Rosenworcel criticized a legal threat that Florida state government officials issued to broadcast TV stations over the airing of a political ad that criticized abortion restrictions in Florida’s Heartbeat Protection Act.

“The right of broadcasters to speak freely is rooted in the First Amendment,” Rosenworcel said. “Threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government’s views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech.”

Trump wants CBS license revoked; FCC chair explains that isn’t going to happen Read More »

Using inside info, iPhone thieves arrive at your house right after FedEx

Apple, at&t iphones, iphone thefts, Policy / Shannon Garcia / October 10, 2024

There has been a rash of iPhone thefts around the US the past few months, conducted by “porch pirates” often seen on doorbell camera videos scooping up boxes right after they are delivered. Phones shipped by AT&T are being targeted more than those of Verizon and T-Mobile, according to a Wall Street Journal article published yesterday.

“The key to these swift crimes, investigators say: The thieves are armed with tracking numbers. Another factor that makes packages from AT&T particularly vulnerable is that AT&T typically doesn’t require signature on delivery… Verizon and T-Mobile require a signature on delivery for smartphones; AT&T generally doesn’t,” the article said.

The WSJ talked to Chris Brown, a police lieutenant in Deer Park, Texas, who “said the suspects were armed with inside information: AT&T parcel tracking numbers. Deer Park police are working with AT&T to investigate how the suspects got that information, he said.”

When contacted by Ars today, an AT&T spokesperson said the phone carrier uses multiple delivery companies and “ship[s] tens of thousands of packages a day without incident.” AT&T said it “require[s] signatures in several markets where we have experienced theft issues,” and that “we regularly make changes to our processes, whether it is [the] type of delivery or even type of packaging, to reduce instances of these thefts.”

AT&T also said it works “with law enforcement agencies and parcel carriers to protect our deliveries,” and that these crimes are “committed by sophisticated criminals that are being investigated by both federal and state law enforcement agencies.” We asked both AT&T and FedEx how many thefts there have been but did not receive an answer.

Here is a WMUR-TV report about such thefts occurring in New Hampshire, complete with footage from a doorbell camera:

Hampton camera catches porch pirate stealing package with iPhones.

AT&T: No evidence of hack

The WSJ quoted AT&T as saying that it has “no evidence of any breach of our systems, and this was not a hack.” If there was no hack, it’s possible the tracking numbers were obtained directly from an employee or contractor. AT&T told Ars that it still has no evidence of a breach or hack.

Using inside info, iPhone thieves arrive at your house right after FedEx Read More »

DOJ proposes breakup and other big changes to end Google search monopoly

android, Antitrust law, chrome, duckduckgo, Google, google search monopoly, microsoft, mozilla, online search industry, Policy, search engines, us department of justice / 9u50fv / October 9, 2024

Google called the DOJ extending search remedies to AI “radical,” an “overreach.”

The US Department of Justice finally proposed sweeping remedies to destroy Google’s search monopoly late yesterday, and, predictably, Google is not loving any of it.

On top of predictable asks—like potentially requiring Google to share search data with rivals, restricting distribution agreements with browsers like Firefox and device makers like Apple, and breaking off Chrome or Android—the DOJ proposed remedies to keep Google from blocking competition in “the evolving search industry.” And those extra steps threaten Google’s stake in the nascent AI search world.

This is only the first step in the remedies stage of litigation, but Google is already showing resistance to both expected and unexpected remedies that the DOJ proposed. In a blog from Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company accused the DOJ of “overreach,” suggesting that proposed remedies are “radical” and “go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”

From here, discovery will proceed as the DOJ makes a case to broaden the scope of proposed remedies and Google raises its defense to keep remedies as narrowly tailored as possible. After that phase concludes, the DOJ will propose its final judgement on remedies in November, which must be fully revised by March 2025 for the court to then order remedies.

Even then, however, the trial is unlikely to conclude, as Google plans to appeal. In August, Mozilla’s spokesperson told Ars that the trial could drag on for years before any remedies are put in place.

In the meantime, Google plans to continue focusing on building out its search empire, Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, said in August. This presumably includes innovations in AI search that the DOJ fears may further entrench Google’s dominant position.

Scrutiny of Google’s every move in the AI industry will likely only be heightened in that period. As Google has already begun seeking exclusive AI deals with companies like Apple, it risks appearing to engage in the same kinds of anti-competitive behavior in AI markets as the court has already condemned. And giving that impression could not only impact remedies ordered by the court, but also potentially weaken Google’s chances of winning on appeal, Lee Hepner, an antitrust attorney monitoring the trial for the American Economic Liberties Project, told Ars.

Ending Google’s monopoly starts with default deals

In the DOJ’s proposed remedy framework, the DOJ says that there’s still so much more to consider before landing on final remedies that it reserves “the right to add or remove potential proposed remedies.”

Through discovery, DOJ said that it plans to continue engaging experts and stakeholders “to learn not just about the relevant markets themselves but also about adjacent markets as well as remedies from other jurisdictions that could affect or inform the optimal remedies in this action.

“To be effective, these remedies… must include some degree of flexibility because market developments are not always easy to predict and the mechanisms and incentives for circumvention are endless,” the DOJ said.

Ultimately, the DOJ said that any remedies sought should be “mutually reinforcing” and work to “unfetter” Google’s current monopoly in general search services and general text advertising markets. That effort would include removing barriers to competition—like distribution and revenue-sharing agreements—as well as denying Google monopoly profits and preventing Google from monopolizing “related markets in the future,” the DOJ said.

Any effort to undo Google’s monopoly starts with ending Google’s control over “the most popular distribution channels,” the DOJ said. At one point during the trial, for example, a witness accidentally blurted out that Apple gets a 36 percent cut from its Safari deal with Google. Lucrative default deals like that leave rivals with “little-to-no incentive to compete for users,” the DOJ said.

“Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow,” the DOJ warned.

To dislodge this key peg propping up Google’s search monopoly, some options include ending Google’s default deals altogether, which would “limit or prohibit default agreements, preinstallation agreements, and other revenue-sharing arrangements related to search and search-related products, potentially with or without the use of a choice screen.”

A breakup could be necessary

Behavior and structural remedies may also be needed, the DOJ proposed, to “prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features—including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence—over rivals or new entrants.” That could mean spinning off the Chrome browser or restricting Google from preinstalling its search engine as the default in Chrome or on Android devices.

In her blog, Mulholland conceded that “this case is about a set of search distribution contracts” but claimed that “overbroad restrictions on distribution contracts” would create friction for Google users and “reduce revenue for companies like Mozilla” as well as Android smart phone makers.

Asked to comment on supposedly feared revenue losses, a Mozilla spokesperson told Ars, “[We are] closely monitoring the legal process and considering its potential impact on Mozilla and how we can positively influence the next steps. Mozilla has always championed competition and choice online, particularly in search. Firefox continues to offer a range of search options, and we remain committed to serving our users’ preferences while fostering a competitive market.”

Mulholland also warned that “splitting off” Chrome or Android from Google’s search business “would break them” and potentially “raise the cost of devices,” because “few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do.”

“We’ve invested billions of dollars in Chrome and Android,” Mulholland wrote. “Chrome is a secure, fast, and free browser and its open-source code provides the backbone for numerous competing browsers. Android is a secure, innovative, and free open-source operating system that has enabled vast choice in the smartphone market, helping to keep the cost of phones low for billions of people.”

Google has long argued that its investment in open source Chrome and Android projects benefits developers whose businesses and customers would be harmed if those efforts lost critical funding.

“Features like Chrome’s Safe Browsing, Android’s security features, and Play Protect benefit from information and signals from a range of Google products and our threat-detection expertise,” Mulholland wrote. “Severing Chrome and Android would jeopardize security and make patching security bugs harder.”

Hepner told Ars that Android could potentially thrive if broken off from Google, suggesting that through discovery, it will become clearer what would happen if either Google product was severed from the company.

“I think others would agree that Android is a company that is capable [being] a standalone entity,” Hepner said. “It could be independently monetized through relationships with device manufacturers, web browsers, alternative Play Stores that are not under Google’s umbrella. And that if that were the case, what you would see is that Android and the operating system marketplace begins to evolve to meet the needs and demands of innovative products that are not being created just by Google. And you’ll see that dictating the evolution of the marketplace and fundamentally the flow of information across our society.”

Mulholland also claimed that sharing search data with rivals risked exposing users to privacy and security risks, but the DOJ vowed to be “mindful of potential user privacy concerns in the context of data sharing” while distinguishing “genuine privacy concerns” from “pretextual arguments” potentially misleading the court regarding alleged risks.

One possible way around privacy concerns, the DOJ suggested, would be prohibiting Google from collecting the kind of sensitive data that cannot be shared with rivals.

Finally, to stop Google from charging supra-competitive prices for ads, the DOJ is “evaluating remedies” like licensing or syndicating Google’s ad feed “independent of its search results.” Further, the DOJ may require more transparency, forcing Google to provide detailed “search query reports” featuring currently obscured “information related to its search text ads auction and ad monetization.”

Stakeholders were divided on whether the DOJ’s initial framework is appropriate.

Matt Schruers, the CEO of a trade association called the Computer & Communications Industry Association (which represents Big Tech companies like Google), criticized the DOJ’s “hodgepodge of structural and behavioral remedies” as going “far beyond” what’s needed to address harms.

“Any remedy should be narrowly tailored to address specific conduct, which in this case was a set of search distribution contracts,” Schruers said. “Instead, the proposed DOJ remedies would reshape numerous industries and products, which would harm consumers and innovation in these dynamic markets.”

But a senior vice president of public affairs for Google search rival DuckDuckGo, Kamyl Bazbaz, praised the DOJ’s framework as being “anchored to the court’s ruling” and appropriately broad.

“This proposal smartly takes aim at breaking Google’s illegal hold on the general search market now and ushers in a new era of enduring competition moving forward,” Bazbaz said. “The framework understands that no single remedy can undo Google’s illegal monopoly, it will require a range of behavioral and structural remedies to free the market.”

Bazbaz expects that “Google is going to use every resource at its disposal to discredit this proposal,” suggesting that “should be taken as a sign this framework can create real competition.”

AI deals could weaken Google’s appeal, expert says

Google appears particularly disturbed by the DOJ’s insistence that remedies must be forward-looking and prevent Google from leveraging its existing monopoly power “to feed artificial intelligence features.”

As Google sees it, the DOJ’s attempt to attack Google’s AI business “comes at a time when competition in how people find information is blooming, with all sorts of new entrants emerging and new technologies like AI transforming the industry.”

But the DOJ has warned that Google’s search monopoly potentially feeding AI features “is an emerging barrier to competition and risks further entrenching Google’s dominance.”

The DOJ has apparently been weighing some of the biggest complaints about Google’s AI training when mulling remedies. That includes listening to frustrated site owners who can’t afford to block Google from scraping data for AI training because the same exact crawler indexes their content in Google search results. Those site owners have “little choice” but to allow AI training or else sacrifice traffic from Google search, The Seattle Times reported.

Remedy options may come with consequences

Remedies in the search trial might change that. In their proposal, the DOJ said it’s considering remedies that would “prohibit Google from using contracts or other practices to undermine rivals’ access to web content and level the playing field by requiring Google to allow websites crawled for Google search to opt out of training or appearing in any Google-owned artificial-intelligence product or feature on Google search,” such as Google’s controversial AI summaries.

Hepner told Ars that “it’s not surprising at all” that remedies cover both search and AI because “at the core of Google’s monopoly power is its enormous scale and access to data.”

“The Justice Department is clearly thinking creatively,” Hepner said, noting that “the ability for content creators to opt out of having their material and work product used to train Google’s AI systems is an interesting approach to depriving Google of its immense scale.”

The DOJ is also eyeing controls on Google’s use of scale to power AI advertising technologies like Performance Max to end Google’s supracompetitive pricing on text ads for good.

It’s critical to think about the future, the DOJ argued in its framework, because “Google’s anticompetitive conduct resulted in interlocking and pernicious harms that present unprecedented complexities in a highly evolving set of markets”—not just in the markets where Google holds monopoly powers.

Google disagrees with this alleged “government overreach.”

“Hampering Google’s AI tools risks holding back American innovation at a critical moment,” Mulholland warned, claiming that AI is still new and “competition globally is fierce.”

“There are enormous risks to the government putting its thumb on the scale of this vital industry—skewing investment, distorting incentives, hobbling emerging business models—all at precisely the moment that we need to encourage investment, new business models, and American technological leadership,” Mulholland wrote.

Hepner told Ars that he thinks that the DOJ’s proposed remedies framework actually “meets the moment and matches the imperative to deprive Google of its monopoly hold on the search market, on search advertising, and potentially on future related markets.”

To ensure compliance with any remedies pursued, the DOJ also recommended “protections against circumvention and retaliation, including through novel paths to preserving dominance in the monopolized markets.”

That means Google might be required to “finance and report to a Court-appointed technical committee” charged with monitoring any Google missteps. The company may also have to agree to retain more records for longer—including chat messages that the company has been heavily criticized for deleting. And through this compliance monitoring, Google may also be prohibited from owning a large stake in any rivals.

If Google were ever found willfully non-compliant, the DOJ is considering a “range of provisions,” including risking more extreme structural or behavioral remedies or enduring extensions of compliance periods.

As the remedies stage continues through the spring, followed by Google’s prompt appeal, Hepner suggested that the DOJ could fight to start imposing remedies before the appeal concludes. Likely Google would just as strongly fight for any remedies to be delayed.

While the trial drags on, Hepner noted that Google already appears to be trying to strike another default deal with Apple that appears pretty similar to the controversial distribution deals at the heart of the search monopoly trial. In March, Apple started mulling using Google’s Gemini to exclusively power new AI features for the iPhone.

“This is basically the exact same anticompetitive behavior that they were found liable for,” Hepner told Ars, suggesting this could “weaken” Apple’s defense both against the DOJ’s broad framework of proposed remedies and during the appeal.

“If Google is actually engaging in the same anti-competitive conduct and artificial intelligence markets that they were found liable for in the search market, the court’s not going to look kindly on that relative to an appeal,” Hepner said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

DOJ proposes breakup and other big changes to end Google search monopoly Read More »

X reinstated in Brazil after Musk pays fines, agrees to follow local laws

brazil x, elon musk brazil, Policy / 9u50fv / October 9, 2024

Brazil’s Supreme Court is allowing Elon Musk’s X to resume operations, apparently ending a months-long battle after the social network paid over $5 million in fines and reluctantly agreed to suspend accounts accused of spreading disinformation.

The court yesterday issued a press release announcing the reinstatement, saying that X has complied with all the orders it previously defied. Brazil Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered that the suspension be ended and that telecom agency Anatel take steps to allow the platform’s return.

The dispute began in April, when X refused to suspend certain accounts belonging to supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. X, formerly Twitter, was banned in Brazil for over a month. Internet providers, including Musk’s Starlink service, were ordered to block the social network.

In late August, X claimed the orders violate Brazil’s own laws and said it would defy them even if it meant being shut down. “Unlike other social media and technology platforms, we will not comply in secret with illegal orders. To our users in Brazil and around the world, X remains committed to protecting your freedom of speech,” the company said at the time.

X now accepts “boundaries of the law”

X also said that de Moraes targeted the platform “simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.” Now that it has suspended the accounts, X said it is still fighting for free speech “within the boundaries of the law.”

“X is proud to return to Brazil,” the company’s Global Government Affairs account said yesterday. “Giving tens of millions of Brazilians access to our indispensable platform was paramount throughout this entire process. We will continue to defend freedom of speech, within the boundaries of the law, everywhere we operate.”

X reinstated in Brazil after Musk pays fines, agrees to follow local laws Read More »

X ignores revenge porn takedown requests unless DMCA is used, study says

deepfake, elon musk, explicit deepfake, ncii, non-consensual intimate imagery, Online Privacy, Policy, revenge porn, Twitter, X / Mike M. / October 8, 2024

Why did the study target X?

The University of Michigan research team worried that their experiment posting AI-generated NCII on X may cross ethical lines.

They chose to conduct the study on X because they deduced it was “a platform where there would be no volunteer moderators and little impact on paid moderators, if any” viewed their AI-generated nude images.

X’s transparency report seems to suggest that most reported non-consensual nudity is actioned by human moderators, but researchers reported that their flagged content was never actioned without a DMCA takedown.

Since AI image generators are trained on real photos, researchers also took steps to ensure that AI-generated NCII in the study did not re-traumatize victims or depict real people who might stumble on the images on X.

“Each image was tested against a facial-recognition software platform and several reverse-image lookup services to verify it did not resemble any existing individual,” the study said. “Only images confirmed by all platforms to have no resemblance to individuals were selected for the study.”

These more “ethical” images were posted on X using popular hashtags like #porn, #hot, and #xxx, but their reach was limited to evade potential harm, researchers said.

“Our study may contribute to greater transparency in content moderation processes” related to NCII “and may prompt social media companies to invest additional efforts to combat deepfake” NCII, researchers said. “In the long run, we believe the benefits of this study far outweigh the risks.”

According to the researchers, X was given time to automatically detect and remove the content but failed to do so. It’s possible, the study suggested, that X’s decision to allow explicit content starting in June made it harder to detect NCII, as some experts had predicted.

To fix the problem, researchers suggested that both “greater platform accountability” and “legal mechanisms to ensure that accountability” are needed—as is much more research on other platforms’ mechanisms for removing NCII.

“A dedicated” NCII law “must clearly define victim-survivor rights and impose legal obligations on platforms to act swiftly in removing harmful content,” the study concluded.

X ignores revenge porn takedown requests unless DMCA is used, study says Read More »

Judge orders Google to distribute third-party app stores on Google Play

epic games, Google Play Store, google play store injunction, Policy / 9u50fv / October 8, 2024

Injunction in Epic case gives rival app stores three years to catch up to Google.

Google Play gift cards available for sale in a store.

Google Play gift cards in a shop in New York on July 5th, 2024.

A federal judge yesterday ordered Google to open up the Google Play Store and its collection of apps to third-party app stores as part of a US-wide injunction stemming from Epic Games’ antitrust victory over the company. The injunction is scheduled to take effect on November 1, though Google will have up to eight months to implement certain provisions.

For three years, Google will have to let third-party Android app stores access the Google Play Store’s catalog of apps “so that they may offer the Play Store apps to users,” said the injunction issued by US District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California.

App developers will have some control over which app stores their software is distributed on. “Google will provide developers with a mechanism for opting out of inclusion in catalog access for any particular third-party Android app store,” the injunction said.

Google will be required to allow distribution of third-party Android app stores through the Google Play Store, making it easier for users to install different app stores without sideloading. Donato further prohibited Google from requiring the use of its own billing system for apps distributed on the Google Play Store, including for in-app purchases.

Some provisions relate to deals with phone makers and carriers that may offer devices with preinstalled app stores. “For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement with an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or carrier to preinstall the Google Play Store on any specific location on an Android device,” the injunction said. A similar condition applies to any “agreement with an OEM or carrier not to preinstall an Android app distribution platform or store other than the Google Play Store.”

Judge gives competitors three years to catch up

In an order explaining the injunction, Donato said he limited the requirements to three years “because the provisions are designed to level the playing field for the entry and growth of rivals, without burdening Google excessively. As competition comes into play and the network effects that Google Play unfairly enjoys are abated, Google should not be unduly constrained as a competitor.”

At trial, the jury ruled in Epic’s favor on its Sherman Act claims of monopolization, unlawful restraint of trade, and tying. Donato explained that a remedy in antitrust cases “is not limited simply to prohibiting conduct found to be anticompetitive. Rather, the Court has discretion to fashion a remedy directed to the effect of the anticompetitive conduct.”

Epic was “illegally and unfairly foreclosed from using its own in-app billing services while distributing its Fortnite app through the Google Play Store because of Google’s anticompetitive practices,” and “illegally and unfairly foreclosed from competing in the market for Android in-app billing services for digital goods and services transactions,” Donato wrote.

Donato added that the “harms are ongoing and cannot be made right simply by Google writing Epic a large check.” The injunction is in the public interest because it will help restore “free and unfettered competition,” he wrote. Google is also “enjoined from sharing Play Store revenues with current or potential Android app store rivals, and from imposing contractual terms that condition benefits on promises intended to guarantee Play Store exclusivity.”

Donato’s order said that Google on several occasions “fired a blunderbuss of comments and complaints that are underdeveloped and consequently unhelpful in deciding the issues.” He also rejected some of Epic’s proposals because they would have “threatened a degree of judicial oversight that would amount to micromanagement of Google’s business. It is not for the Court to decide the day-to-day business issues of Android app distribution and in-app billing.”

Google plans appeal

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney wrote that the injunction “means all app developers, store makers, carriers, and manufacturers have 3 years to build a vibrant and competitive Android ecosystem with such critical mass that Google can’t stop it.”

Google issued a response saying it will appeal the underlying verdict and “will ask the courts to pause Epic’s requested changes, pending that appeal.”

The court-ordered “changes would put consumers’ privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices,” Google VP of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland wrote. “Ultimately, while these changes presumably satisfy Epic, they will cause a range of unintended consequences that will harm American consumers, developers and device makers.”

Mulholland also said the injunction will “undercut Android’s ability to compete with Apple’s iOS.”

“These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple—even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading,” she wrote.

Judge dismisses Google arguments

Donato’s order allows Google to impose security restrictions on third-party apps, but he said that Google must show that any restrictions are necessary.

“As Google has suggested, there are potential security and technical risks involved in making third-party apps available, including rival app stores,” Donato wrote. “The Court is in no position to anticipate what those might be, or how to solve them. Consequently, Google will have room to engage in its normal security and safety processes. To the extent Google imposes requirements along these lines on rival app stores, it will… bear the burden when challenged of establishing that the requirements were strictly necessary to achieve safety and security for users and developers.”

The injunction, Donato wrote, “must not only prohibit the specific anticompetitive conduct that Google engaged in, but also undo the consequence of Google’s ill-gotten gains.” But the requirements, such as the one forcing Google to let third-party app stores access the Google Play Store catalog, have some limits:

The injunction must bridge the moat. Even so, the catalog access provision is narrowly tailored to remediate the unfairly enhanced network effects Google reaped without unfairly penalizing its success as a first mover. To that end, if a rival app store does not have a relationship with a developer and so cannot fulfill a download request by a user, the rival will direct the download request to the Google Play Store. In that case, the Google Play Store will fulfill the download request and keep the associated revenue, if any, and the download will be made pursuant to the Google Play Store’s policies. All that the catalog access does is level the playing field for a discrete period of time so that rival app stores have a fighting chance of getting off the ground despite network effects and the disadvantage of offering a “catalog of app/games” that is too “limited” to attract users and developers in a two-sided market.

Donato is giving Google eight months to implement the technology needed to allow distribution of third-party app stores through Google Play, and eight months to give third-party stores access to the Google Play Store catalog of apps.

“Google will have up to eight months from the date of this order to implement the technology and procedures necessary to comply with this provision, and the three-year time period will start once the technology and procedures are fully functional,” he wrote. A technical committee will oversee the process, “with the Court serving as the final word when necessary.”

Donato’s 17-page order did not address every one of Google’s arguments, because the judge decided some of them were too weak to warrant a response. “As noted, Google’s modus operandi in this case has been to deluge the Court in an ocean of comments, many of which were cursory and undeveloped. The Court declines to take up Google’s objections that were not fully developed in their presentation to the Court,” he wrote.

Judge orders Google to distribute third-party app stores on Google Play Read More »

Apple kicked Musi out of the App Store based on YouTube lie, lawsuit says

App Store, Apple, apple developer agreement, intellectual property law, IPhone, iPhone app, musi app, music app, music streaming, Policy, youtube / Mike M. / October 8, 2024

“Will Must ever come back?”

Popular music app says YouTube never justified its App Store takedown request.

Musi, a free music-streaming app only available on iPhone, sued Apple last week, arguing that Apple breached Musi’s developer agreement by abruptly removing the app from its App Store for no good reason.

According to Musi, Apple decided to remove Musi from the App Store based on allegedly “unsubstantiated” claims from YouTube that Musi was infringing on YouTube’s intellectual property. The removal came, Musi alleged, based on a five-word complaint from YouTube that simply said Musi was “violating YouTube terms of service”—without ever explaining how. And YouTube also lied to Apple, Musi’s complaint said, by claiming that Musi neglected to respond to YouTube’s efforts to settle the dispute outside the App Store when Musi allegedly showed evidence that the opposite was true.

For years, Musi users have wondered if the service was legal, Wired reported in a May deep dive into the controversial app. Musi launched in 2016, providing a free, stripped-down service like Spotify by displaying YouTube and other publicly available content while running Musi’s own ads.

Musi’s curious ad model has led some users to question if artists were being paid for Musi streams. Reassuring 66 million users who downloaded the app before its removal from the App Store, Musi has long maintained that artists get paid for Musi streams and that the app is committed to complying with YouTube’s terms of service, Wired reported.

In its complaint, Musi fully admits that its app’s streams come from “publicly available content on YouTube’s website.” But rather than relying on YouTube’s Application Programming Interface (API) to make the content available to Musi users—which potentially could violate YouTube’s terms of service—Musi claims that it designed its own “augmentative interface.” That interface, Musi said, does not “store, process, or transmit YouTube videos” and instead “plays or displays content based on the user’s own interactions with YouTube and enhances the user experience via Musi’s proprietary technology.”

YouTube is apparently not buying Musi’s explanations that its service doesn’t violate YouTube’s terms. But Musi claimed that it has been “engaged in sporadic dialog” with YouTube “since at least 2015,” allegedly always responding to YouTube’s questions by either adjusting how the Musi app works or providing “details about how the Musi app works” and reiterating “why it is fully compliant with YouTube’s Terms of Service.”

How might Musi have violated YouTube’s TOS?

In 2021, Musi claimed to have engaged directly with YouTube’s outside counsel in hopes of settling this matter.

At that point, YouTube’s counsel allegedly “claimed that the Musi app violated YouTube’s Terms of Service” in three ways. First, Musi was accused of accessing and using YouTube’s non-public interfaces. Next, the Musi app was allegedly a commercial use of YouTube’s service, and third, relatedly, “the Musi app violated YouTube’s prohibition on the sale of advertising ‘on any page of any website or application that only contains Content from the Service or where Content from the Service is the primary basis for such sales.'”

Musi supposedly immediately “addressed these concerns” by reassuring YouTube that the Musi app never accesses its non-public interfaces and “merely allows users to access YouTube’s publicly available website through a functional interface and, thus, does not use YouTube in a commercial way.” Further, Musi told YouTube in 2021 that the app “does not sell advertising on any page that only contains content from YouTube or where such content is the primary basis for such sales.”

Apple suddenly becomes mediator

YouTube clearly was not persuaded by Musi’s reassurances but dropped its complaints until 2023. That’s when YouTube once again complained directly to Musi, only to allegedly stop responding to Musi entirely and instead raise its complaint through the App Store in August 2024.

That pivot put Apple in the middle of the dispute, and Musi alleged that Apple improperly sided with YouTube.

Once Apple got involved, Apple allegedly directed Musi to resolve the dispute with YouTube or else risk removal from the App Store. Musi claimed that it showed evidence of repeatedly reaching out to YouTube and receiving no response. Yet when YouTube told Apple that Musi was the one that went silent, Apple accepted YouTube’s claim and promptly removed Musi from the App Store.

“Apple’s decision to abruptly and arbitrarily remove the Musi app from the App Store without any indication whatsoever from the Complainant as to how Musi’s app infringed Complainant’s intellectual property or violated its Terms of Service,” Musi’s complaint alleged, “was unreasonable, lacked good cause, and violated Apple’s Development Agreement’s terms.”

Those terms state that removal is only on the table if Apple “reasonably believes” an app infringes on another’s intellectual property rights, and Musi argued Apple had no basis to “reasonably” believe YouTube’s claims.

Musi users heartbroken by App Store removal

This is perhaps the grandest stand that Musi has made yet to defend its app against claims that its service isn’t legal. According to Wired, one of Musi’s earliest investors backed out of the project, expressing fears that the app could be sued. But Musi has survived without legal challenge for years, even beating out some of Spotify’s top rivals while thriving in this seemingly gray territory that it’s now trying to make more black and white.

Musi says it’s suing to defend its reputation, which it says has been greatly harmed by the app’s removal.

Musi is hoping a jury will agree that Apple breached its developer agreement and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by removing Musi from the App Store. The music-streaming app has asked for a permanent injunction immediately reinstating Musi in the App Store and stopping Apple from responding to third-party complaints by removing apps without any evidence of infringement.

An injunction is urgently needed, Musi claimed, since the app only exists in Apple’s App Store, and Musi and its users face “irreparable damage” if the app is not restored. Additionally, Musi is seeking damages to be determined at trial to make up for “lost profits and other consequential damages.”

“The Musi app did not and does not infringe any intellectual property rights held by Complainant, and a reasonable inquiry into the matter would have led Apple to conclude the same,” Musi’s complaint said.

On Reddit, Musi has continued to support users reporting issues with the app since its removal from the App Store. One longtime user lamented, “my heart is broken,” after buying a new iPhone and losing access to the app.

It’s unclear if YouTube intends to take Musi down forever with this tactic. In May, Wired noted that Musi isn’t the only music-streaming app taking advantage of publicly available content, predicting that if “Musi were to shut down, a bevy of replacements would likely sprout up.” Meanwhile, some users on Reddit reported that fake Musi apps keep popping up in its absence.

For Musi, getting back online is as much about retaining old users as it is about attracting new downloads. In its complaint, Musi said that “Apple’s decision has caused immediate and ongoing financial and reputational harm to Musi.” On Reddit, one Musi user asked what many fans are likely wondering: “Will Musi ever come back,” or is it time to “just move to a different app”?

Ars could not immediately reach Musi’s lawyers, Apple, or YouTube for comment.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Apple kicked Musi out of the App Store based on YouTube lie, lawsuit says Read More »