@AdamEisgrau

The case, before the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, is: PERLMUTTER v. BLANCHE, 1:25-cv-01659, (D.D.C.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7034...

The Register's 10/6 pleading is online at:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7034...

The Register's legal team then surgically peels the onion of the Government's arguments concerning the President's various claimed authorities to appoint and fire Library of Congress leadership, including the Register.

To wit:

Predictably, the Register makes much of the DC Circuit's recent decision temporarily reinstating her, arguing that the District Court should be bound now by its clear findings of fact in the Register's favor in that ruling:

Temporarily reinstated Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter has pushed back against the Administration's ask of the Court to reject her Motion for Summary Judgment and permanent restoration of her title and duties... 🧵

The case is Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., 1:24-cv-07984, (S.D.N.Y.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6928...

Perplexity's 10/6 Answer is available via the ECF system here:
ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/127038...

The balance of their intro to that effect is readable in full text here:

@perplexityai.bsky.social has answered @DowJones.com's 2d Amended Complaint in the usual terse clause-by-clause way but its preamble sketches its defense: 1) the facts its "Answer Engine" returns when queried aren't copyrightable; and 2) compiling that info from the web's been legal for decades:

As @c_valenzuelab also notes, revolutionary tech like gen AI promotes the democratization of art (and related commerce) by enabling literally millions of people to realize their visions and convey their own ideas.
That's ©'s true purpose: the "Progress of Science and useful Arts..."

3) As @edleeprof.bsky.social's amicus brief for Jason Allen details, denying © protection now to gen AI-enabled artists just can't be squared either with the history of the Constitution's © Clause or, as @c_valenzuelab also argues, fundamental fairness.
See: www.courtlistener.com/docket/6919...

2) Every new art-making tech has always met with resistance from existing © holders and traditional artists (eg, cameras) but historically the genius of such tech is liberating the genius of new artists to make new work: copyright's Constitutional purpose. @c_valenzuelab says:

1) As @c_valenzuelab argues, and I note in my Aug. post re artist Jason Allen's suit v the @CopyrightOffice.gov for denying him © in a gen AI work he created with 624 separate prompts, realizing an idea with a tool is hugely creative:
x.com/AdamEisgrau...

RunwayML.com CEO @c_valenzuelab is persuasive in @TheInformation today: When it comes to earning a ©, current policy's thwarting creativity.
Key points:
1. using tech doesn't make a creator less human;
2. © exists to incentivize creativity;
3. creative AI users deserve ©s
🧵⏬👀

The case is UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., 1:24-cv-04777, (S.D.N.Y.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6887...

@UMG's Amended Compliant is online via the ECG system at:
ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sho...

The new Cause of Action, invoking both DMCA §§1201 and, alternatively, 1203, reads:

The original Complaint's barely been modified other than to add text (shown in full below) supporting the new DMCA cause of action. The allegedly unlawful conduct, which @UMG.com says justifies maximum statutory damages, is "stream ripping" audio files mostly from YouTube:

Plaintiffs also misrepresent fair use, again ignoring the Bartz holding that what @UdioMusic.com did was make a "spectacularly" transformative tool, which did involve huge creativity and expression. How others use the tool isn't relevant to a fair use defense to direct infringement!

Read on for what's new in the Amended Complaint. Understand first plaintiffs' warped view of © below. Contrary to the clear and correct analysis of the Bartz decision, © is NOT meant to protect works from competition; rather, "dilution" of the market simply isn't actionable:

@UMG.com, having won a Motion to Amend its Complaint, has just filed to add a DMCA violation claim against @UdioMusic.com's owner, Uncharted Labs:

The case is Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, 5:24-cv-03811, (N.D. Cal.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6888...

Judge Van Keulen's pointed proclamation is not yet available via Courtlistener but is imaged in the first post of this thread and online at:
www.mlex.com/mlex/articl...

Unless they can agree before Friday, all counsel must reporytto court and prepare to justify why they've not come to agreement AND to remain all day to negotiate until most matters are put to rest. If they can agree before then, so much the better and sanctions will be averted:

As @AnthropicAI.com and @CMG.com contest major filings, like Motions to Dismiss before Judge Lee (see my last post), other intense technical battles over what will be produced in discovery have proliferated. Magistrate Susan Van Keulen is fed up and prepared to sanction all counsel!

The case is Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, 5:24-cv-03811, (N.D. Cal.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6888...

Judge Lee's Order denying @ANthopicAI's Motion to Dismis on all requested counts is online at:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.u...

Next up, per Judge Lee's Order, look for Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint followed by @AnthropicAI's Answer...

Count IV: CMI Alteration - Knowingly stripping Copyright Management Info from a ©d work or distributing stripped works are separate violations of DMCA §1202(b). The Court simply didn't buy @AnthropicAI's argument that it didn't know that removing CMI would hide infringement:

Count III: Vicarious Infringement -- Consistent with its prior ruling, the Court reiterated that an allegation that @AnthropicAI.com profited from users' use of *specific* ©d works owned by @CMG.com is sufficient for plaintiffs' claim on this count to proceed:

Count II: Contributory Infringement - The Court, at this early stage of the proceedings, accepted that @AnthropicAI.com disputes @CMG.com's allegations that it knew of users' use of its model to infringe but found those allegations plausible:

The Court's Order lays out @CMG.com's operative allegations for purposes of @AnthropicAI.com's Motion to Dismiss counts II, III and IV of the First Amended Complaint here:

@AnthropicAI.com's LOST its bid to get 3 counts of @CMG.com's amended Complaint dismissed. Re two counts of 2dary © infringment, Judge Eumi Lee had to accept the facts now as argued by @CMG.com but left the door open to @AnthropicAI.com to re-move for dismissal later. A DMCA claim stands:🧵

James Madison wrote the “Copyright Clause” of the Constitution. With an assist from OpenAI.com’s Sora2, who better to explain that its overarching purpose was and remains fair use-fueled “Progress,” like gen AI itself:

The case is Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, 5:24-cv-03811, (N.D. Cal.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6888...

The parties positions are staked out here:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6888...