Photo Credit: Muhammad Asyfaul
Do stream-ripping platforms have “substantial” non-infringing uses? Hartford-based Yout believes so, and following the Supreme Court’s Cox v. Sony decision, it’s doubling down on the position in its marathon RIAA legal battle.
That position isn’t new for Yout, which has been duking it out with the RIAA for the better part of a decade. As we’ve covered at length, the stream-ripper (which enables users to “rip” and download YouTube videos’ audio) itself initiated the legal action, accusing the trade organization of violating the DMCA with allegedly false takedown requests.
The requests allegedly prompted Google to boot Yout from search results – and allegedly defamed Yout by causing the public to believe that it “engaged and continues to engage in illegal and unlawful conduct.”
In the opposite corner, the RIAA, having taken aim at Yout amid a broader stream-ripper crackdown, has long maintained that the alleged conduct is, in fact, unlawful. This refers in large part to the platform’s alleged circumvention of YouTube’s “rolling cipher” anti-piracy technology in violation of the DMCA.
And Yout, which is currently appealing its initial suit’s dismissal, is adamant that its core offering has non-infringing uses and only automates a straightforward in-browser download process in any event.
As mentioned, these alleged non-infringing uses are now taking center stage following Cox v. Sony.
Therein, the Supreme Court held that “[t]he provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement if it intended its service to be used for infringement.”
Furthermore, a service provider “intended” to facilitate infringement if it “induced” said infringement or “sold a service tailored to infringement,” according to the unanimous decision.
Enter a recent letter to the appellate court from Team Yout, which underscored that while the Supreme Court’s “Cox Communications is not an anti-circumvention case, it nonetheless may provide useful guidance” here concerning when a service is tailored to infringement.
“Citing to its holding in Sony [the 1984 “Betamax case,” that is], the Cox Communications Court held that merely providing a service or product to the public that could be used for infringing purposes is insufficient to impose liability on a defendant, even where the defendant had prior knowledge that the service might be used for such purposes.”
In closing, Yout reiterated the Supreme Court’s emphasis “that contributory liability cannot rest only on a provider’s knowledge of infringement and insufficient action to prevent it.”
Unsurprisingly, the RIAA in a response expressed the belief that “Yout’s letter is not helpful to the resolution of this case.”
“The Cox decision addresses common law contributory liability for infringement. Yout’s complaint involves statutory anti-circumvention claims,” the RIAA continued. “Because the claims in Cox and those at issue are different, the opinion’s discussion of whether a service is ‘tailored to infringement’ has no bearing on this appeal.”
Instead, the showdown still hinges on the DMCA’s section 1201, concerning the circumvention of technological measures (like the rolling cipher) designed to control access to protected works, per the RIAA.
(Precisely what constitutes an “access control” as opposed to a “copy control” is a different but similarly convoluted debate that’s factoring into multiple music-space cases.)
Stated briefly, Yout is liable because it’s allegedly “primarily designed to circumvent” the relevant access-control measures, it deals in download-geared paid subscriptions, and it “markets its service for circumvention because it calls itself a ‘stream-recording tool,’” according to the RIAA.
Of course, Yout is hardly on the same page; for one thing, the stream-ripper previously described several purported non-infringing uses for its service.
In the bigger picture, given the growing focus on AI giants’ (and others’) alleged DMCA violations, where the cards fall in Yout’s RIAA dispute will directly affect different music-world legal battles.
To be sure, both Suno and Udio are grappling with stream-ripping allegations and felt compelled to weigh in on Yout’s appeal. Moreover, the increasingly intricate web of interconnected industry litigation doesn’t end there; Cox v. Sony is also impacting courtroom confrontations involving Anthropic, Meta, Epidemic Sound, multiple internet service providers, indie artists, and others yet.
