Musi, the ad-supported streaming app accused of infringing music copyrights, accused Apple of engaging in a “secret conduit scheme with music industry groups” to remove the app from the Apple App Store.
Apple said the allegation came after this national music publishers association (State Drug Administration) and Sony Music Entertainment In addition to those previously reported, there have also been complaints about the app’s practices Complaint from International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (international federation of food industry).
Musi’s apps are only available through Apple’s App Store, and it does not obtain music licenses from copyright holders or build a library of licensed music. Instead, it gives users access to the following audio Youtube Play videos through your own interface. The app reportedly serves its own ads on the interface.
Reported by wired Data cited earlier this year showed the Musi app had been downloaded 66 million Since its launch ten years ago, 8.5 million There are downloads in 2023 alone.
Apple removed the Musi app from its store in September after YouTube complained that Musi violated the video platform’s terms of service.
In early October, Musi filed a lawsuit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asking the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to force Apple to return the application to the App Store.
The lawsuit also seeks damages for “breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
In a response filed with the court in November, Apple said it had no contractual obligation to keep the Musi app in its store because the contract allowed it to “remove the app at any time, with or without cause.”
But even if that’s not the case, “Apple’s decision in this case follows numerous credible complaints alleging that the Musi app infringes upon the legal rights of third parties,” the response said.
“The complaints include widely publicized allegations of copyright infringement, of which Musi was specifically aware, but which were omitted from Musi’s filing.”
Apple said Musi “removes YouTube advertising content and replaces it with Musi’s own content or allows for paid viewing of ad-free streaming content.”
Apple also said it “received numerous complaints from third parties alleging that Musi copied copyrighted content from YouTube without the copyright holder’s authorization and deprived artists and other rights holders of royalties.”
Apple said in its response that the complainants included the IFPI, NMPA and Sony Music (which can be read in full here).
Apple responded that “Musi is an audio streaming application that obtains its content from YouTube’s application programming interface (‘API’) to avoid paying copyright licensing fees.” The National Medical Products Administration also reportedly requested that ” Delete this app quickly”. From the Apple App Store. “
Court documents cite “public reports” obtained by Mousi US$100 million Advertising revenue from January 2023 to Spring 2024.
Apple argued that being forced to reinstate the Musi apps “would effectively force Apple to adjudicate every allegation of infringement against app developers.”
The company said it receives “thousands” of complaints each year and “adjudicating each complaint would be unmanageable and expose Apple to legal challenges from developers and complainants.”
“[Apple] Numerous complaints were received from third parties alleging that Musi copied copyrighted content from YouTube without the copyright holder’s authorization and deprived artists and other rights holders of royalties.
Apple in Musi v. Apple legal filing
In a court filing on Friday (December 6), Musi used Apple’s response to argue that Apple conspired with music industry groups to remove the app from the App Store.
Musi said in the filing that Apple’s response “suggests that it is using its influence over the App Store as part of a larger secret conduit scheme with music industry groups bent on destroying Musi, without even informing Musi of the consequences. The discussion was deleted.
“Apple has exercised unprecedented control over the only viable digital applications market for the world’s most important mobile platform.” [iOS]”, Musi said Apple refuted its “claims that it remained neutral during the app dispute.”
Court documents say Apple “consistently represented to Musi that it could not and would not arbitrate disputes and that Musi must work directly with any complainants to address their concerns.”
However, Musi argued that “Apple did not play a neutral role; instead of following the process it had set for itself to resolve app disputes… it acted as an arbiter (without even informing Musi of this fact or providing him with a response). Opportunity). Despite keeping Moussione in the dark, Apple, YouTube and several music industry groups decided Moussi’s fate through behind-the-scenes conversations.
Musi also disputed some of Apple’s factual claims, claiming that the IFPI “clearly stated deny Any claim under United States copyright law. IFPI made blatant claims of breach of European law, but as Musi’s British lawyers explained, these claims were without merit.
Musi also claimed that when it contacted Sony Music Entertainment regarding the alleged infringement complaint, “the SME stated that there was no complaint and that the complaint belonged to IFPI.”
It added that the State Food and Drug Administration “has never brought an app dispute against Musi or even had any contact with Musi.”
Musi also claims that its interface “does not interfere” with any ads placed by YouTube on videos “so long as those ads are included in public video media streamed by Musi app users.”
“Apple has exercised unprecedented control over the only viable digital applications market for the world’s most important mobile platform.”
Musi, in a document in Musi v. Apple
Mussi also said Apple’s actions were inconsistent with its previous behavior, arguing that Apple never removed the YouTube app from its app despite “years of litigation from Viacom… alleging massive copyright infringement.” Removed from the store.
Court documents say Apple relied on “a number of popular Musi-related works commissioned by the music industry” as the basis for its message.
Musi also argued that if a complaint is filed against an app, Apple’s developer contract requires it to conduct a “human and/or systems review” before determining that the app violates its terms of service, and “Apple has failed to do so.” ”.
Musi’s case was previously under trial Judge Li Huimei In the United States District Court, San Francisco Division.
according to a report digital music news Since Musi was removed from the Apple App Store in October, “several” clone apps have emerged, some of which can be found in the App Store.global music business
