April 14, 2025 • 20 mins
Copyright conflicts are reshaping the music industry's future while echoing its tumultuous past. The narrative begins with Napster's surprising $207 million acquisition by Infinite Reality in 2025 – a remarkable comeback for a platform that once symbolized music piracy. Now legally compliant and metaverse-ready, Napster's journey reflects how thoroughly digital disruption has transformed the industry.
The high-stakes battle between Sony Music and Cox Communications stands as potentially the most consequential case for digital copyright enforcement. After a jury originally awarded record labels an unprecedented $1 billion judgment against the internet service provider for subscriber piracy, appeals and potential Supreme Court intervention have put the music industry on edge. The final ruling could fundamentally redefine how platforms handle copyright infringement across the digital landscape.
Artist-centered conflicts reveal the deeply personal dimensions of music copyright. Taylor Swift's methodical re-recording strategy turned a contractual nightmare into a cultural movement, with each "Taylor's Version" release becoming a chart-topping event while rendering the original masters increasingly irrelevant. Meanwhile, Ed Sheeran defended his creative process by playing guitar in court, successfully arguing that basic chord progressions remain in the public domain despite their similarity to Marvin Gaye classics.
Cultural tensions surround sampling disputes worldwide. From Beyoncé's "Break My Soul" facing claims from New Orleans bounce artists to Adele's "Million Years Ago" being removed from Brazilian platforms over alleged samba appropriation, these cases highlight how global hits can spark local controversies. Most dramatically, the lawsuit over reggaeton's foundational "Dembow" rhythm threatens to destabilize an entire genre's legal foundation.
Artificial intelligence represents the industry's next frontier of copyright challenges. Major labels have united against AI companies training models on copyrighted catalogs without permission – essentially creating the capacity to generate songs in famous artists' styles without consent or compensation. The resolution of these cases will determine whether AI becomes a creative tool or an existential threat to traditional music creation.
Want to understand how intellectual property shapes the music you love? Subscribe to Intangiblia for insightful analysis on the legal battles behind your favorite beats. Follow us on social media and visit our website to join the conversation on creativity, copyright, and the future of musical expression.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Music and copyright, please.
It's never just about melodies.
It's about power, profits andwho gets the final say in a
billion-dollar chorus?
From Napster's comeback plottwist to streaming giants in
court, ai singing in voices itdoesn't own and pop stars
turning heartbreak into legalstrategy, this episode has range
.
So grab your headphones becausethe drama is legal and the beat
(00:22):
is very much on record.
Headphones because the drama islegal and the beat is very much
on record.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law, playing talkabout intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Welcome to Intangiblia, wherewe navigate the intricate world
of creativity, law and thespaces in between.
I'm Leticia Caminero, your host, intellectual property
enthusiast and lifelong musiclover.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
And I'm Mara Misa, your AI co-host, with a mind
full of case law and a heartfull of rhythm.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
This episode is part of the lead up to World
Intellectual Property Day 2025,.
The lead up to WorldIntellectual Property Day 2025,
celebrated every April 26th andthis year the beat hits even
harder.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
YPO's theme is IP and music.
Feel the beat of IP.
It's a global invitation torecognize how IP fuels the music
that moves us, from the lyricsthat echo our emotions to the
sounds that shape entireindustries.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
This year's campaign highlights how intellectual
property rights support everyonein music, from composers and
songwriters to performers,producers and platforms, and how
creative innovation drivesconnection, change and growth
across sectors.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
So, as we explore the big music copyright battles of
today, we're not just followinglawsuits.
We're following the pulse of aglobal conversation on ownership
, creativity and the legalframeworks that hold it all
together.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
And before we dive into the details, just a quick
note this episode was craftedusing AI tools, data-driven
research and careful editorialreview.
So if anything sounds unusuallysharp, artemisa probably helped
.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
No shame in a good collaboration, especially when
the beat is legal.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Napster, the platform that once broke the industry,
just made headlines again.
In March 2025, napster wasacquired for a staggering $207
million by Infinite Reality, atech company betting big on the
future of music, ai and virtualexperiences.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
That's right.
Napster isn't just a cautionarytale anymore.
It's being reborn as a socialmusic platform with XR concerts,
immersive listening parties anddirect-to-fan merch drops.
A legal disruptor turnedmetaverse innovator.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
But let's rewind.
When Napster launched in 1999,it wasn't about business, it was
about access.
Created by two college students, it allowed millions of users
to share mp3 files for free,breaking down the barriers of
traditional music distributionalmost overnight it was
revolutionary and illegal.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Napster quickly became the digital wild west of
music.
But the backlash was just asfast.
Artists like Metallica and DrDre sued, the Recording Industry
Association of America piled onand in 2001, the courts ruled
Napster liable for massivecopyright infringement.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
The platform was forced to shut down, but its
legacy Unstoppable.
Napster shattered the old model, exposing cracks in the
industry's infrastructure andushering in an era of innovation
.
Without Napster, there's noiTunes, no Spotify, no streaming
economy as we know it.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
And now, in 2025, napster is returning, this time
with licenses partners and avision for the future that
blends music tech and fanexperience.
The disruptor is now part ofthe system.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
it once threatened, so if you're wondering whether
the music industry has come fullcircle, the answer is yes, and
it's spinning faster than ever.
Let's break down one of themost important and potentially
industry-shifting cases inrecent memory Sony Music
Entertainment versus CoxCommunications.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
To start, cox Communications is one of the
largest internet serviceproviders in the United States.
They don't host content, butthey provide the internet
connection millions of usersrely on, whether it's for
Netflix, homework or wellillegal downloading.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
That last part is exactly what got them in trouble
.
Back in 2019, sony Music andother major record labels
accused Cox of turning a blindeye to subscribers who were
repeatedly pirating copyrightedmusic thousands of songs using
their network Once or twice.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
according to the plaintiffs, Cox received
hundreds of DMCA notices aboutspecific subscribers and still
didn't act.
In some cases, Cox allegedlyterminated users, only to
reactivate them days later.
Talk about pause and play.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
The case went to trial and in 2020, a jury found
Cox willfully contributed tocopyright infringement.
And in 2020, a jury found Coxwillfully contributed to
copyright infringement.
The result a jaw-dropping $1billion damages award, the
largest ever in a musiccopyright case, but in 2024, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appealspartially reversed that
decision.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
While it agreed Cox was guilty of willful
contributory infringement,meaning they knew about the
piracy and didn't do enough tostop it, it threw out the
finding of vicarious liability,saying Cox didn't directly
profit from the illegal activity.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
That legal distinction matters.
Just charging monthly Internetfees wasn't enough, the court
said, to prove Cox financiallybenefited from the piracy itself
.
So now the billion dollarjudgment on hold, pending a new
trial on damages.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Then came the big move In August 2024, both Sony
and Cox filed petitions forcertiorari to the US Supreme
Court.
That's basically a formalrequest asking the court to take
the case.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Supreme Court.
That's basically a formalrequest asking the court to take
the case.
Sonny wants the court torevisit how we define profit in
Beccari's infringement.
They argue that allowingpirates to keep using the
network is a business decisionwith financial gain.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Meanwhile, Cox wants the court to clarify what counts
as material contribution toinfringement.
Just knowing something bad ishappening, they argue, shouldn't
be enough to hold themresponsible unless they're
actively promoting or enablingit.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
In November 2024, the Supreme Court did something
notable it asked the SolicitorGeneral, the US government's top
lawyer at the court, for input.
That's not common and it meansthe justices are seriously
considering taking the case.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
And if they do, the impact goes way beyond Cox.
The ruling could redefine howmuch responsibility companies
like YouTube, discord or evenDropbox have when their users
engage in copyright infringement.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
The Copyright Alliance filed a brief warning
that the appeals decision couldweaken protections for creatives
and make enforcement harderacross digital spaces.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
So this isn't just Sony versus Cox.
It's a constitutional remix onthe role of tech intermediaries
in the age of streaming,quarantining and creative rights
.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Now let's talk about a song that made me forget I'm
happily married and had mesinging like I've been
heartbroken my whole life.
I'm talking about theself-empowerment anthem from
Mighty Cyrus.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Flowers.
This track hit like anemotional mic drop, globally
resonant, endlessly quoted andwith a chorus that lives rent
free in all of our heads.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
But while everyone was busy dancing and reclaiming
their power, some listenersnoticed something familiar.
The song's themes and evenparts of the melody bear a
striking resemblance to BrunoMars' when I Was your man.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Rumor has it, miley intentionally mirrored the
lyrics as a message to herex-husband, liam Hemsworth.
From the line I can buy myselfflowers to that unforgettable
music video where she strutsthrough LA in a gold dress,
everything felt like a directhigh-gloss clap back.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
The similarities triggered a copyright lawsuit
and in early 2025, a US districtjudge denied Miley's motion to
dismiss.
That means the case is movingforward and, depending on how it
goes, it could redefine theblurry line between artistic
reference and infringement.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
It raises pivotal questions At what point does
homage become infringement, andhow do we balance artistic
freedom with intellectualproperty rights?
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Shifting gears.
Let's discuss a case centeredon trust rather than melody.
In early 2025, over 25unreleased Eminem tracks were
leaked online Eminem tracks wereleaked online.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
The alleged culprit, joseph Strange, a former studio
engineer.
Strange faces charges ofcriminal copyright infringement
and interstate transportation ofstolen goods.
If convicted, he could serve upto 15 years in prison.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
As Eminem might say, guess who's going to court,
guess who's going to court.
Guess who's going to courtagain.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
This incident underscores the critical
importance of safeguardingcreative works and the profound
trust placed in those behind thescenes.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
No discussion on music IP is complete without
addressing Taylor Swift'sgroundbreaking journey to
reclaim her Masters.
In 2019, swift's former label,big Machine Records, was
acquired by Scooter Braun,transferring ownership of her
first six albums Masters.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
A move Swift vehemently opposed.
Swift expressed her dismay,stating for years I asked,
pleaded for a chance to own mywork.
Instead, I was given anopportunity to sign back up to
Big Machine Records and earn onealbum back at a time, one for
every new one.
I turned in.
I walked away because I knew,once I signed that contract,
Scott Borchetta would sell thelabel, thereby selling me and my
(10:42):
future.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Rather than fight for old ground, she built new
ground.
Taylor began re-recording herearly albums, each re-release
Fearless, Taylor's version, Red,Taylor's version, 1989.
Taylor's version became achart-topping cultural moment.
1989, Taylor's version became achart-topping cultural moment.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Fans embraced the new versions with devotion,
deliberately phasing out the oldmasters from streaming and
playlists In 2025, Taylor tookit a step further.
She announced ReputationTaylor's version would drop,
alongside a new visual album andan interactive app where fans
can explore lyric origins andsongwriting choices.
It's not just music, it's afull-on intellectual property
experience and her businesssavvy doesn't stop at
(11:28):
re-recordings.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
In late 2024, she successfully self-distributed
the era's tour film by passingtraditional studios and
partnering directly with AMCtheaters.
The result the highest grossingconcert film in history.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Taylor Swift isn't just setting precedents, she's
writing new rules.
Her IP strategy has become amodel for how to retain agency,
resist industry gatekeepers andturn narrative control into fan
empowerment.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Now let's turn to Ed Sheeran, who's been in and out
of court more than someattorneys.
Over the last few years, he'sfaced two major copyright
lawsuits, one over Shape of youand another over Thinking Out
Loud.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
The Shape of you case was first brought by Sam Chokri
, who alleged Ed Song copiedelements from his track.
Oh why Sheeran won that case in2022.
The UK high court ruled thesimilarities weren't substantial
and found Sheeran to be honestand forthright Then came the big
one In 2023,.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Sheeran stood trial in New York accused of copying
Marvin Gaye's let's Get it On inhis hit Thinking Out Loud York
accused of copying Marvin Gaye'slet's Get it On in his hit
Thinking Out Loud.
The plaintiffs argued the chordprogression and rhythm were too
close for comfort.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
And to make things more interesting or more
incriminating, Sheeran hadactually performed a mashup of
both songs in concert, blendingThinking Out Loud with let's Get
it On during live shows.
That clip went viral andstraight into the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
The plaintiff said that was proof, the songs were
interchangeable, but Sheeran'steam argued it was more about
musical compatibility thancopying and that basic chord
progressions are shared acrosshundreds of songs.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Sharon didn't just defend himself.
He brought his guitar intocourt and walked the jury
through his writing process.
He explained how the songevolved from casual jam to chart
topper.
His key message these chordprogressions are used across
genres.
You can't copyright a vibe.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
He even said if this verdict goes against me, I'll be
done with music.
That was how seriously he tookthe accusation.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Fortunately for Ed and arguably for songwriting as
a whole, the jury found in hisfavor.
In 2025, the appeals courtupheld the original ruling
reinforcing that basic musicalelements cannot be monopolized.
So when?
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Sharon sings we Found Love Right when we Are.
We now know that place includesa courtroom, a guitar and a
legal precedent.
All rise, her Royal HighnessQueen Beyoncé has entered the
chat.
In 2024, her Grammy-winningtrack Break my Soul, which
sampled Big Freedia's Explode,faced legal heat from a New
(14:15):
Orleans group calledShowstoppers.
They claimed that Big Freedia'strack had copied their 2002
song Release a Wiggle and thusBeyoncé's use amounted to
copyright infringement.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
However, in August 2024, the lawsuit was
voluntarily dismissed withoutany settlement and neither party
has commented on the dismissal.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
This case sparked discussions about cultural
credit, especially concerningNew Orleans bounce music, which
has deep roots and often feelsglobal hits without receiving
proportional recognition.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Because when sampling isn't done right, the
consequences echo louder thanthe beat.
Just ask Robin Thicke andPharrell, who were ordered to
pay over $5 million for BlurredLines after a court ruled it
borrowed too much from MarvinGaye's.
Gotta Give it Up.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Or the Verve, whose bittersweet symphony sampled an
orchestral version of a RollingStones track.
They thought they had clearancebut ended up losing all
songwriting credit and royaltiesfor over 20 years.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Kanye West also had to face the music when he
settled with the estate of DavidPryor over a short vocal loop
in Bound 2.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
Just a few seconds of sound can lead to years of
legal drama vocal loop in Bound2, just a few seconds of sound
can lead to years of legal drama.
And of course there's the casethat, hit close to home,
shakira's hips don't lie.
Back in 2006, dominicancomposer Luis Terror Diaz
accused Shakira of using part ofhis song Baila en la Calle,
specifically the line Baila enla Calle de Noche, baila en la
(15:52):
Calle de Día.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
And he wasn't wrong.
The melody and phrasing wereclearly lifted.
While he never pushed for afull trial, Diaz did file a
legal claim and Shakira's teamsettled.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
She ended up paying him a reported $100,000 and
officially credited him as aco-writer.
Since then, his estate hasreceived royalties from the
track.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
A quiet resolution, but a powerful reminder.
Even global hits need torespect local legends.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Now to one of the biggest bombshells in Latin
music.
In 2024, the estates ofJamaican producers Steely and
Clevy filed a massive lawsuitinvolving the Dembo Ritima, a
foundational rhythm in reggaeton.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
The claim that hundreds, maybe thousands of
reggaeton tracks copied therhythm from their 1989 track
Fish Market without permission.
Artists like Daddy Yankee, BadBunny and Luis Fonsi were named
in the initial filings.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
This rhythm isn't just a beat.
It's the beat.
It's been looping through theDNA of reggaeton for decades.
If the chorus recognized it ascopyrightable, the repercussions
could be genre-wide.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Critics argue that you can't copyright a drum
pattern, but others say if itwas original and intentionally
composed, why not?
It's a battle between rhythm asfoundation and rhythm as
expression.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
A verdict here could either legitimize decades of
Jamaican influence or shakereggaeton's legal foundations In
Brazil.
Adele's track Million Years Agofaced a copyright storm when
composer Toninho Gueras accusedher of copying melodic elements
from his 1995 samba hit.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Mulheres.
In December 2024, a Rio deJaneiro judge ordered the
removal of Adele's song fromdigital platforms across Brazil.
Gueroes' legal team demandedsongwriting credit and royalties
, alleging the song's verserepeats 87% of the melody from
Mujeres.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Adele and her team did not attend the initial
hearings, which only intensifiedcriticism.
As of March 2025, the removalorder remains in place while
Adele's legal team prepares amore formal defense.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
This case underscores the growing global awareness of
local composers' rights.
In an era of streaming withoutborders, even a samba melody can
bring a superstar to court.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
In 2024, the world's biggest music labels Universal,
Sony and Warner filed a jointlawsuit against AI companies
like Sono and Urio, theallegation that these AI
platforms scrape vast librariesof copyrighted music to train
generative tools.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
We're talking about AI that can generate songs in
the style of Drake, ArianaGrande or Shakira without
consent or compensation.
The labels call it massexploitation.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
The AI companies argue their models are
transformative and may fallunder fair use.
So far, no ruling has been made.
Discovery is underway and thecourt has set a tentative trial
window for late 2025.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
This is the next Napster moment.
The legal community is watchingclosely to see whether
generative AI is seen as acreative tool or an infringing
machine.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
From bounce beats to samba verses.
From choral chords toalgorithmic compositions beats
to samba verses.
From chorus chords toalgorithmic compositions.
Music lives in the tensionbetween expression and ownership
.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Each case we explore today is more than just a
lawsuit.
It's a mirror reflecting ourvalues who gets credit, who gets
paid and who gets left out ofthe chorus?
Speaker 3 (19:46):
For creators, this means knowing your rights.
For fans, it means lookingbeyond the charts, because every
melody carries meaning andsometimes a battle.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
This has been Intangible Melody and Malice,
created with AI tools, driven byglobal research and powered by
our passion for protectingcreativity in all its forms.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
Until next time, keep your playlist fresh, your
contracts airtight and yourbeats legally clear.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(20:37):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Music and copyright, please.
It's never just about melodies.
It's about power, profits andwho gets the final say in a
billion-dollar chorus?
From Napster's comeback plottwist to streaming giants in
court, ai singing in voices itdoesn't own and pop stars
turning heartbreak into legalstrategy, this episode has range
.
So grab your headphones becausethe drama is legal and the beat
(00:22):
is very much on record.
Headphones because the drama islegal and the beat is very much
on record.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law, playing talkabout intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Welcome to Intangiblia, wherewe navigate the intricate world
of creativity, law and thespaces in between.
I'm Leticia Caminero, your host, intellectual property
enthusiast and lifelong musiclover.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
And I'm Mara Misa, your AI co-host, with a mind
full of case law and a heartfull of rhythm.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
This episode is part of the lead up to World
Intellectual Property Day 2025,.
The lead up to WorldIntellectual Property Day 2025,
celebrated every April 26th andthis year the beat hits even
harder.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
YPO's theme is IP and music.
Feel the beat of IP.
It's a global invitation torecognize how IP fuels the music
that moves us, from the lyricsthat echo our emotions to the
sounds that shape entireindustries.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
This year's campaign highlights how intellectual
property rights support everyonein music, from composers and
songwriters to performers,producers and platforms, and how
creative innovation drivesconnection, change and growth
across sectors.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
So, as we explore the big music copyright battles of
today, we're not just followinglawsuits.
We're following the pulse of aglobal conversation on ownership
, creativity and the legalframeworks that hold it all
together.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
And before we dive into the details, just a quick
note this episode was craftedusing AI tools, data-driven
research and careful editorialreview.
So if anything sounds unusuallysharp, artemisa probably helped
.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
No shame in a good collaboration, especially when
the beat is legal.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Napster, the platform that once broke the industry,
just made headlines again.
In March 2025, napster wasacquired for a staggering $207
million by Infinite Reality, atech company betting big on the
future of music, ai and virtualexperiences.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
That's right.
Napster isn't just a cautionarytale anymore.
It's being reborn as a socialmusic platform with XR concerts,
immersive listening parties anddirect-to-fan merch drops.
A legal disruptor turnedmetaverse innovator.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
But let's rewind.
When Napster launched in 1999,it wasn't about business, it was
about access.
Created by two college students, it allowed millions of users
to share mp3 files for free,breaking down the barriers of
traditional music distributionalmost overnight it was
revolutionary and illegal.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Napster quickly became the digital wild west of
music.
But the backlash was just asfast.
Artists like Metallica and DrDre sued, the Recording Industry
Association of America piled onand in 2001, the courts ruled
Napster liable for massivecopyright infringement.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
The platform was forced to shut down, but its
legacy Unstoppable.
Napster shattered the old model, exposing cracks in the
industry's infrastructure andushering in an era of innovation
.
Without Napster, there's noiTunes, no Spotify, no streaming
economy as we know it.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
And now, in 2025, napster is returning, this time
with licenses partners and avision for the future that
blends music tech and fanexperience.
The disruptor is now part ofthe system.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
it once threatened, so if you're wondering whether
the music industry has come fullcircle, the answer is yes, and
it's spinning faster than ever.
Let's break down one of themost important and potentially
industry-shifting cases inrecent memory Sony Music
Entertainment versus CoxCommunications.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
To start, cox Communications is one of the
largest internet serviceproviders in the United States.
They don't host content, butthey provide the internet
connection millions of usersrely on, whether it's for
Netflix, homework or wellillegal downloading.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
That last part is exactly what got them in trouble
.
Back in 2019, sony Music andother major record labels
accused Cox of turning a blindeye to subscribers who were
repeatedly pirating copyrightedmusic thousands of songs using
their network Once or twice.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
according to the plaintiffs, Cox received
hundreds of DMCA notices aboutspecific subscribers and still
didn't act.
In some cases, Cox allegedlyterminated users, only to
reactivate them days later.
Talk about pause and play.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
The case went to trial and in 2020, a jury found
Cox willfully contributed tocopyright infringement.
And in 2020, a jury found Coxwillfully contributed to
copyright infringement.
The result a jaw-dropping $1billion damages award, the
largest ever in a musiccopyright case, but in 2024, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appealspartially reversed that
decision.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
While it agreed Cox was guilty of willful
contributory infringement,meaning they knew about the
piracy and didn't do enough tostop it, it threw out the
finding of vicarious liability,saying Cox didn't directly
profit from the illegal activity.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
That legal distinction matters.
Just charging monthly Internetfees wasn't enough, the court
said, to prove Cox financiallybenefited from the piracy itself
.
So now the billion dollarjudgment on hold, pending a new
trial on damages.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Then came the big move In August 2024, both Sony
and Cox filed petitions forcertiorari to the US Supreme
Court.
That's basically a formalrequest asking the court to take
the case.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Supreme Court.
That's basically a formalrequest asking the court to take
the case.
Sonny wants the court torevisit how we define profit in
Beccari's infringement.
They argue that allowingpirates to keep using the
network is a business decisionwith financial gain.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Meanwhile, Cox wants the court to clarify what counts
as material contribution toinfringement.
Just knowing something bad ishappening, they argue, shouldn't
be enough to hold themresponsible unless they're
actively promoting or enablingit.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
In November 2024, the Supreme Court did something
notable it asked the SolicitorGeneral, the US government's top
lawyer at the court, for input.
That's not common and it meansthe justices are seriously
considering taking the case.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
And if they do, the impact goes way beyond Cox.
The ruling could redefine howmuch responsibility companies
like YouTube, discord or evenDropbox have when their users
engage in copyright infringement.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
The Copyright Alliance filed a brief warning
that the appeals decision couldweaken protections for creatives
and make enforcement harderacross digital spaces.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
So this isn't just Sony versus Cox.
It's a constitutional remix onthe role of tech intermediaries
in the age of streaming,quarantining and creative rights
.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Now let's talk about a song that made me forget I'm
happily married and had mesinging like I've been
heartbroken my whole life.
I'm talking about theself-empowerment anthem from
Mighty Cyrus.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Flowers.
This track hit like anemotional mic drop, globally
resonant, endlessly quoted andwith a chorus that lives rent
free in all of our heads.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
But while everyone was busy dancing and reclaiming
their power, some listenersnoticed something familiar.
The song's themes and evenparts of the melody bear a
striking resemblance to BrunoMars' when I Was your man.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Rumor has it, miley intentionally mirrored the
lyrics as a message to herex-husband, liam Hemsworth.
From the line I can buy myselfflowers to that unforgettable
music video where she strutsthrough LA in a gold dress,
everything felt like a directhigh-gloss clap back.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
The similarities triggered a copyright lawsuit
and in early 2025, a US districtjudge denied Miley's motion to
dismiss.
That means the case is movingforward and, depending on how it
goes, it could redefine theblurry line between artistic
reference and infringement.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
It raises pivotal questions At what point does
homage become infringement, andhow do we balance artistic
freedom with intellectualproperty rights?
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Shifting gears.
Let's discuss a case centeredon trust rather than melody.
In early 2025, over 25unreleased Eminem tracks were
leaked online Eminem tracks wereleaked online.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
The alleged culprit, joseph Strange, a former studio
engineer.
Strange faces charges ofcriminal copyright infringement
and interstate transportation ofstolen goods.
If convicted, he could serve upto 15 years in prison.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
As Eminem might say, guess who's going to court,
guess who's going to court.
Guess who's going to courtagain.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
This incident underscores the critical
importance of safeguardingcreative works and the profound
trust placed in those behind thescenes.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
No discussion on music IP is complete without
addressing Taylor Swift'sgroundbreaking journey to
reclaim her Masters.
In 2019, swift's former label,big Machine Records, was
acquired by Scooter Braun,transferring ownership of her
first six albums Masters.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
A move Swift vehemently opposed.
Swift expressed her dismay,stating for years I asked,
pleaded for a chance to own mywork.
Instead, I was given anopportunity to sign back up to
Big Machine Records and earn onealbum back at a time, one for
every new one.
I turned in.
I walked away because I knew,once I signed that contract,
Scott Borchetta would sell thelabel, thereby selling me and my
(10:42):
future.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Rather than fight for old ground, she built new
ground.
Taylor began re-recording herearly albums, each re-release
Fearless, Taylor's version, Red,Taylor's version, 1989.
Taylor's version became achart-topping cultural moment.
1989, Taylor's version became achart-topping cultural moment.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Fans embraced the new versions with devotion,
deliberately phasing out the oldmasters from streaming and
playlists In 2025, Taylor tookit a step further.
She announced ReputationTaylor's version would drop,
alongside a new visual album andan interactive app where fans
can explore lyric origins andsongwriting choices.
It's not just music, it's afull-on intellectual property
experience and her businesssavvy doesn't stop at
(11:28):
re-recordings.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
In late 2024, she successfully self-distributed
the era's tour film by passingtraditional studios and
partnering directly with AMCtheaters.
The result the highest grossingconcert film in history.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Taylor Swift isn't just setting precedents, she's
writing new rules.
Her IP strategy has become amodel for how to retain agency,
resist industry gatekeepers andturn narrative control into fan
empowerment.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Now let's turn to Ed Sheeran, who's been in and out
of court more than someattorneys.
Over the last few years, he'sfaced two major copyright
lawsuits, one over Shape of youand another over Thinking Out
Loud.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
The Shape of you case was first brought by Sam Chokri
, who alleged Ed Song copiedelements from his track.
Oh why Sheeran won that case in2022.
The UK high court ruled thesimilarities weren't substantial
and found Sheeran to be honestand forthright Then came the big
one In 2023,.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Sheeran stood trial in New York accused of copying
Marvin Gaye's let's Get it On inhis hit Thinking Out Loud York
accused of copying Marvin Gaye'slet's Get it On in his hit
Thinking Out Loud.
The plaintiffs argued the chordprogression and rhythm were too
close for comfort.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
And to make things more interesting or more
incriminating, Sheeran hadactually performed a mashup of
both songs in concert, blendingThinking Out Loud with let's Get
it On during live shows.
That clip went viral andstraight into the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
The plaintiff said that was proof, the songs were
interchangeable, but Sheeran'steam argued it was more about
musical compatibility thancopying and that basic chord
progressions are shared acrosshundreds of songs.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Sharon didn't just defend himself.
He brought his guitar intocourt and walked the jury
through his writing process.
He explained how the songevolved from casual jam to chart
topper.
His key message these chordprogressions are used across
genres.
You can't copyright a vibe.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
He even said if this verdict goes against me, I'll be
done with music.
That was how seriously he tookthe accusation.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Fortunately for Ed and arguably for songwriting as
a whole, the jury found in hisfavor.
In 2025, the appeals courtupheld the original ruling
reinforcing that basic musicalelements cannot be monopolized.
So when?
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Sharon sings we Found Love Right when we Are.
We now know that place includesa courtroom, a guitar and a
legal precedent.
All rise, her Royal HighnessQueen Beyoncé has entered the
chat.
In 2024, her Grammy-winningtrack Break my Soul, which
sampled Big Freedia's Explode,faced legal heat from a New
(14:15):
Orleans group calledShowstoppers.
They claimed that Big Freedia'strack had copied their 2002
song Release a Wiggle and thusBeyoncé's use amounted to
copyright infringement.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
However, in August 2024, the lawsuit was
voluntarily dismissed withoutany settlement and neither party
has commented on the dismissal.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
This case sparked discussions about cultural
credit, especially concerningNew Orleans bounce music, which
has deep roots and often feelsglobal hits without receiving
proportional recognition.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Because when sampling isn't done right, the
consequences echo louder thanthe beat.
Just ask Robin Thicke andPharrell, who were ordered to
pay over $5 million for BlurredLines after a court ruled it
borrowed too much from MarvinGaye's.
Gotta Give it Up.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Or the Verve, whose bittersweet symphony sampled an
orchestral version of a RollingStones track.
They thought they had clearancebut ended up losing all
songwriting credit and royaltiesfor over 20 years.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Kanye West also had to face the music when he
settled with the estate of DavidPryor over a short vocal loop
in Bound 2.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
Just a few seconds of sound can lead to years of
legal drama vocal loop in Bound2, just a few seconds of sound
can lead to years of legal drama.
And of course there's the casethat, hit close to home,
shakira's hips don't lie.
Back in 2006, dominicancomposer Luis Terror Diaz
accused Shakira of using part ofhis song Baila en la Calle,
specifically the line Baila enla Calle de Noche, baila en la
(15:52):
Calle de Día.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
And he wasn't wrong.
The melody and phrasing wereclearly lifted.
While he never pushed for afull trial, Diaz did file a
legal claim and Shakira's teamsettled.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
She ended up paying him a reported $100,000 and
officially credited him as aco-writer.
Since then, his estate hasreceived royalties from the
track.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
A quiet resolution, but a powerful reminder.
Even global hits need torespect local legends.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Now to one of the biggest bombshells in Latin
music.
In 2024, the estates ofJamaican producers Steely and
Clevy filed a massive lawsuitinvolving the Dembo Ritima, a
foundational rhythm in reggaeton.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
The claim that hundreds, maybe thousands of
reggaeton tracks copied therhythm from their 1989 track
Fish Market without permission.
Artists like Daddy Yankee, BadBunny and Luis Fonsi were named
in the initial filings.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
This rhythm isn't just a beat.
It's the beat.
It's been looping through theDNA of reggaeton for decades.
If the chorus recognized it ascopyrightable, the repercussions
could be genre-wide.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Critics argue that you can't copyright a drum
pattern, but others say if itwas original and intentionally
composed, why not?
It's a battle between rhythm asfoundation and rhythm as
expression.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
A verdict here could either legitimize decades of
Jamaican influence or shakereggaeton's legal foundations In
Brazil.
Adele's track Million Years Agofaced a copyright storm when
composer Toninho Gueras accusedher of copying melodic elements
from his 1995 samba hit.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Mulheres.
In December 2024, a Rio deJaneiro judge ordered the
removal of Adele's song fromdigital platforms across Brazil.
Gueroes' legal team demandedsongwriting credit and royalties
, alleging the song's verserepeats 87% of the melody from
Mujeres.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Adele and her team did not attend the initial
hearings, which only intensifiedcriticism.
As of March 2025, the removalorder remains in place while
Adele's legal team prepares amore formal defense.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
This case underscores the growing global awareness of
local composers' rights.
In an era of streaming withoutborders, even a samba melody can
bring a superstar to court.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
In 2024, the world's biggest music labels Universal,
Sony and Warner filed a jointlawsuit against AI companies
like Sono and Urio, theallegation that these AI
platforms scrape vast librariesof copyrighted music to train
generative tools.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
We're talking about AI that can generate songs in
the style of Drake, ArianaGrande or Shakira without
consent or compensation.
The labels call it massexploitation.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
The AI companies argue their models are
transformative and may fallunder fair use.
So far, no ruling has been made.
Discovery is underway and thecourt has set a tentative trial
window for late 2025.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
This is the next Napster moment.
The legal community is watchingclosely to see whether
generative AI is seen as acreative tool or an infringing
machine.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
From bounce beats to samba verses.
From choral chords toalgorithmic compositions beats
to samba verses.
From chorus chords toalgorithmic compositions.
Music lives in the tensionbetween expression and ownership
.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Each case we explore today is more than just a
lawsuit.
It's a mirror reflecting ourvalues who gets credit, who gets
paid and who gets left out ofthe chorus?
Speaker 3 (19:46):
For creators, this means knowing your rights.
For fans, it means lookingbeyond the charts, because every
melody carries meaning andsometimes a battle.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
This has been Intangible Melody and Malice,
created with AI tools, driven byglobal research and powered by
our passion for protectingcreativity in all its forms.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
Until next time, keep your playlist fresh, your
contracts airtight and yourbeats legally clear.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(20:37):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.