Intangiblia™
Plain talk about Intellectual Property. Podcast of Intangible Law™
Intangiblia™
Melody & Malice: Law, Beats and Billion-Dollar Battles
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.
Music and copyright, please. It's never just about melodies. It's about power, profits and who gets the final say in a billion-dollar chorus? From Napster's comeback plot twist to streaming giants in court, ai singing in voices it doesn't own and pop stars turning heartbreak into legal strategy, this episode has range. So grab your headphones because the drama is legal and the beat is very much on record. Headphones because the drama is legal and the beat is very much on record.
Speaker 2:You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law, playing talk about intellectual property.
Speaker 3:Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero. Welcome to Intangiblia, where we navigate the intricate world of creativity, law and the spaces in between. I'm Leticia Caminero, your host, intellectual property enthusiast and lifelong music lover.
Speaker 1:And I'm Mara Misa, your AI co-host, with a mind full of case law and a heart full of rhythm.
Speaker 3:This episode is part of the lead up to World Intellectual Property Day 2025,. The lead up to World Intellectual Property Day 2025, celebrated every April 26th and this year the beat hits even harder.
Speaker 1:YPO's theme is IP and music. Feel the beat of IP. It's a global invitation to recognize how IP fuels the music that moves us, from the lyrics that echo our emotions to the sounds that shape entire industries.
Speaker 3:This year's campaign highlights how intellectual property rights support everyone in music, from composers and songwriters to performers, producers and platforms, and how creative innovation drives connection, change and growth across sectors.
Speaker 1:So, as we explore the big music copyright battles of today, we're not just following lawsuits. We're following the pulse of a global conversation on ownership, creativity and the legal frameworks that hold it all together.
Speaker 3:And before we dive into the details, just a quick note this episode was crafted using AI tools, data-driven research and careful editorial review. So if anything sounds unusually sharp, artemisa probably helped.
Speaker 1:No shame in a good collaboration, especially when the beat is legal.
Speaker 3:Napster, the platform that once broke the industry, just made headlines again. In March 2025, napster was acquired for a staggering $207 million by Infinite Reality, a tech company betting big on the future of music, ai and virtual experiences.
Speaker 1:That's right. Napster isn't just a cautionary tale anymore. It's being reborn as a social music platform with XR concerts, immersive listening parties and direct-to-fan merch drops. A legal disruptor turned metaverse innovator.
Speaker 3: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 distribution almost overnight it was revolutionary and illegal.
Speaker 1:Napster quickly became the digital wild west of music. But the backlash was just as fast. Artists like Metallica and Dr Dre sued, the Recording Industry Association of America piled on and in 2001, the courts ruled Napster liable for massive copyright infringement.
Speaker 3:The platform was forced to shut down, but its legacy Unstoppable. Napster shattered the old model, exposing cracks in the industry's infrastructure and ushering in an era of innovation. Without Napster, there's no iTunes, no Spotify, no streaming economy as we know it.
Speaker 1:And now, in 2025, napster is returning, this time with licenses partners and a vision for the future that blends music tech and fan experience. The disruptor is now part of the system.
Speaker 3:it once threatened, so if you're wondering whether the music industry has come full circle, the answer is yes, and it's spinning faster than ever. Let's break down one of the most important and potentially industry-shifting cases in recent memory Sony Music Entertainment versus Cox Communications.
Speaker 1:To start, cox Communications is one of the largest internet service providers in the United States. They don't host content, but they provide the internet connection millions of users rely on, whether it's for Netflix, homework or well illegal downloading.
Speaker 3:That last part is exactly what got them in trouble. Back in 2019, sony Music and other major record labels accused Cox of turning a blind eye to subscribers who were repeatedly pirating copyrighted music thousands of songs using their network Once or twice.
Speaker 1:according to the plaintiffs, Cox received hundreds of DMCA notices about specific subscribers and still didn't act. In some cases, Cox allegedly terminated users, only to reactivate them days later. Talk about pause and play.
Speaker 3:The case went to trial and in 2020, a jury found Cox willfully contributed to copyright infringement. And in 2020, a jury found Cox willfully contributed to copyright infringement. The result a jaw-dropping $1 billion damages award, the largest ever in a music copyright case, but in 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed that decision.
Speaker 1:While it agreed Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement, meaning they knew about the piracy and didn't do enough to stop it, it threw out the finding of vicarious liability, saying Cox didn't directly profit from the illegal activity.
Speaker 3:That legal distinction matters. Just charging monthly Internet fees wasn't enough, the court said, to prove Cox financially benefited from the piracy itself. So now the billion dollar judgment on hold, pending a new trial on damages.
Speaker 1:Then came the big move In August 2024, both Sony and Cox filed petitions for certiorari to the US Supreme Court. That's basically a formal request asking the court to take the case.
Speaker 3:Supreme Court. That's basically a formal request asking the court to take the case. Sonny wants the court to revisit how we define profit in Beccari's infringement. They argue that allowing pirates to keep using the network is a business decision with financial gain.
Speaker 1:Meanwhile, Cox wants the court to clarify what counts as material contribution to infringement. Just knowing something bad is happening, they argue, shouldn't be enough to hold them responsible unless they're actively promoting or enabling it.
Speaker 3:In November 2024, the Supreme Court did something notable it asked the Solicitor General, the US government's top lawyer at the court, for input. That's not common and it means the justices are seriously considering taking the case.
Speaker 1:And if they do, the impact goes way beyond Cox. The ruling could redefine how much responsibility companies like YouTube, discord or even Dropbox have when their users engage in copyright infringement.
Speaker 3:The Copyright Alliance filed a brief warning that the appeals decision could weaken protections for creatives and make enforcement harder across digital spaces.
Speaker 1:So this isn't just Sony versus Cox. It's a constitutional remix on the role of tech intermediaries in the age of streaming, quarantining and creative rights.
Speaker 3:Now let's talk about a song that made me forget I'm happily married and had me singing like I've been heartbroken my whole life. I'm talking about the self-empowerment anthem from Mighty Cyrus.
Speaker 1:Flowers. This track hit like an emotional mic drop, globally resonant, endlessly quoted and with a chorus that lives rent free in all of our heads.
Speaker 3:But while everyone was busy dancing and reclaiming their power, some listeners noticed something familiar. The song's themes and even parts of the melody bear a striking resemblance to Bruno Mars' when I Was your man.
Speaker 1:Rumor has it, miley intentionally mirrored the lyrics as a message to her ex-husband, liam Hemsworth. From the line I can buy myself flowers to that unforgettable music video where she struts through LA in a gold dress, everything felt like a direct high-gloss clap back.
Speaker 3:The similarities triggered a copyright lawsuit and in early 2025, a US district judge denied Miley's motion to dismiss. That means the case is moving forward and, depending on how it goes, it could redefine the blurry line between artistic reference and infringement.
Speaker 1:It raises pivotal questions At what point does homage become infringement, and how do we balance artistic freedom with intellectual property rights?
Speaker 3:Shifting gears. Let's discuss a case centered on trust rather than melody. In early 2025, over 25 unreleased Eminem tracks were leaked online Eminem tracks were leaked online.
Speaker 1:The alleged culprit, joseph Strange, a former studio engineer. Strange faces charges of criminal copyright infringement and interstate transportation of stolen goods. If convicted, he could serve up to 15 years in prison.
Speaker 3:As Eminem might say, guess who's going to court, guess who's going to court. Guess who's going to court again.
Speaker 1:This incident underscores the critical importance of safeguarding creative works and the profound trust placed in those behind the scenes.
Speaker 2:You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law playing talk about intellectual property.
Speaker 3:No discussion on music IP is complete without addressing Taylor Swift's groundbreaking 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:A move Swift vehemently opposed. Swift expressed her dismay, stating for years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead, I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and earn one album 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 the label, thereby selling me and my future.
Speaker 3:Rather than fight for old ground, she built new ground. Taylor began re-recording her early albums, each re-release Fearless, Taylor's version, Red, Taylor's version, 1989. Taylor's version became a chart-topping cultural moment. 1989, Taylor's version became a chart-topping cultural moment.
Speaker 1:Fans embraced the new versions with devotion, deliberately phasing out the old masters from streaming and playlists In 2025, Taylor took it a step further. She announced Reputation Taylor's version would drop, alongside a new visual album and an interactive app where fans can explore lyric origins and songwriting choices. It's not just music, it's a full-on intellectual property experience and her business savvy doesn't stop at re-recordings.
Speaker 3:In late 2024, she successfully self-distributed the era's tour film by passing traditional studios and partnering directly with AMC theaters. The result the highest grossing concert film in history.
Speaker 1:Taylor Swift isn't just setting precedents, she's writing new rules. Her IP strategy has become a model for how to retain agency, resist industry gatekeepers and turn narrative control into fan empowerment.
Speaker 3:Now let's turn to Ed Sheeran, who's been in and out of court more than some attorneys. Over the last few years, he's faced two major copyright lawsuits, one over Shape of you and another over Thinking Out Loud.
Speaker 1:The Shape of you case was first brought by Sam Chokri, who alleged Ed Song copied elements from his track. Oh why Sheeran won that case in 2022. The UK high court ruled the similarities weren't substantial and found Sheeran to be honest and forthright Then came the big one In 2023,.
Speaker 3:Sheeran stood trial in New York accused of copying Marvin Gaye's let's Get it On in his hit Thinking Out Loud York accused of copying Marvin Gaye's let's Get it On in his hit Thinking Out Loud. The plaintiffs argued the chord progression and rhythm were too close for comfort.
Speaker 1:And to make things more interesting or more incriminating, Sheeran had actually performed a mashup of both songs in concert, blending Thinking Out Loud with let's Get it On during live shows. That clip went viral and straight into the courtroom.
Speaker 3:The plaintiff said that was proof, the songs were interchangeable, but Sheeran's team argued it was more about musical compatibility than copying and that basic chord progressions are shared across hundreds of songs.
Speaker 1:Sharon didn't just defend himself. He brought his guitar into court and walked the jury through his writing process. He explained how the song evolved from casual jam to chart topper. His key message these chord progressions are used across genres. You can't copyright a vibe.
Speaker 3:He even said if this verdict goes against me, I'll be done with music. That was how seriously he took the accusation.
Speaker 1:Fortunately for Ed and arguably for songwriting as a whole, the jury found in his favor. In 2025, the appeals court upheld the original ruling reinforcing that basic musical elements cannot be monopolized. So when?
Speaker 3:Sharon sings we Found Love Right when we Are. We now know that place includes a courtroom, a guitar and a legal precedent. All rise, her Royal Highness Queen Beyoncé has entered the chat. In 2024, her Grammy-winning track Break my Soul, which sampled Big Freedia's Explode, faced legal heat from a New Orleans group called Showstoppers. They claimed that Big Freedia's track had copied their 2002 song Release a Wiggle and thus Beyoncé's use amounted to copyright infringement.
Speaker 1:However, in August 2024, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without any settlement and neither party has commented on the dismissal.
Speaker 3:This case sparked discussions about cultural credit, especially concerning New Orleans bounce music, which has deep roots and often feels global hits without receiving proportional recognition.
Speaker 1:Because when sampling isn't done right, the consequences echo louder than the beat. Just ask Robin Thicke and Pharrell, who were ordered to pay over $5 million for Blurred Lines after a court ruled it borrowed too much from Marvin Gaye's. Gotta Give it Up.
Speaker 3:Or the Verve, whose bittersweet symphony sampled an orchestral version of a Rolling Stones track. They thought they had clearance but ended up losing all songwriting credit and royalties for over 20 years.
Speaker 1:Kanye West also had to face the music when he settled with the estate of David Pryor over a short vocal loop in Bound 2.
Speaker 3:Just a few seconds of sound can lead to years of legal drama vocal loop in Bound 2, just a few seconds of sound can lead to years of legal drama. And of course there's the case that, hit close to home, shakira's hips don't lie. Back in 2006, dominican composer Luis Terror Diaz accused Shakira of using part of his song Baila en la Calle, specifically the line Baila en la Calle de Noche, baila en la Calle de Día.
Speaker 1:And he wasn't wrong. The melody and phrasing were clearly lifted. While he never pushed for a full trial, Diaz did file a legal claim and Shakira's team settled.
Speaker 3:She ended up paying him a reported $100,000 and officially credited him as a co-writer. Since then, his estate has received royalties from the track.
Speaker 1:A quiet resolution, but a powerful reminder. Even global hits need to respect local legends.
Speaker 3:Now to one of the biggest bombshells in Latin music. In 2024, the estates of Jamaican producers Steely and Clevy filed a massive lawsuit involving the Dembo Ritima, a foundational rhythm in reggaeton.
Speaker 1:The claim that hundreds, maybe thousands of reggaeton tracks copied the rhythm from their 1989 track Fish Market without permission. Artists like Daddy Yankee, Bad Bunny and Luis Fonsi were named in the initial filings.
Speaker 3:This rhythm isn't just a beat. It's the beat. It's been looping through the DNA of reggaeton for decades. If the chorus recognized it as copyrightable, the repercussions could be genre-wide.
Speaker 1:Critics argue that you can't copyright a drum pattern, but others say if it was original and intentionally composed, why not? It's a battle between rhythm as foundation and rhythm as expression.
Speaker 3:A verdict here could either legitimize decades of Jamaican influence or shake reggaeton's legal foundations In Brazil. Adele's track Million Years Ago faced a copyright storm when composer Toninho Gueras accused her of copying melodic elements from his 1995 samba hit.
Speaker 1:Mulheres. In December 2024, a Rio de Janeiro judge ordered the removal of Adele's song from digital platforms across Brazil. Gueroes' legal team demanded songwriting credit and royalties, alleging the song's verse repeats 87% of the melody from Mujeres.
Speaker 3:Adele and her team did not attend the initial hearings, which only intensified criticism. As of March 2025, the removal order remains in place while Adele's legal team prepares a more formal defense.
Speaker 1:This case underscores the growing global awareness of local composers' rights. In an era of streaming without borders, even a samba melody can bring a superstar to court.
Speaker 3:In 2024, the world's biggest music labels Universal, Sony and Warner filed a joint lawsuit against AI companies like Sono and Urio, the allegation that these AI platforms scrape vast libraries of copyrighted music to train generative tools.
Speaker 1:We're talking about AI that can generate songs in the style of Drake, Ariana Grande or Shakira without consent or compensation. The labels call it mass exploitation.
Speaker 3:The AI companies argue their models are transformative and may fall under fair use. So far, no ruling has been made. Discovery is underway and the court has set a tentative trial window for late 2025.
Speaker 1:This is the next Napster moment. The legal community is watching closely to see whether generative AI is seen as a creative tool or an infringing machine.
Speaker 3:From bounce beats to samba verses. From choral chords to algorithmic compositions beats to samba verses. From chorus chords to algorithmic compositions. Music lives in the tension between expression and ownership.
Speaker 1:Each case we explore today is more than just a lawsuit. It's a mirror reflecting our values who gets credit, who gets paid and who gets left out of the chorus?
Speaker 3:For creators, this means knowing your rights. For fans, it means looking beyond the charts, because every melody carries meaning and sometimes a battle.
Speaker 1:This has been Intangible Melody and Malice, created with AI tools, driven by global research and powered by our passion for protecting creativity in all its forms.
Speaker 3:Until next time, keep your playlist fresh, your contracts airtight and your beats legally clear.
Speaker 2:Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law playing. Talk about intellectual property. Did you like what we talked today? Please share with your network. Do you want to learn more about intellectual property? Subscribe now on your favorite podcast player. Follow us on Instagram, facebook, linkedin and Twitter. Visit our website wwwintangibliacom. Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020. All rights reserved. This podcast is provided for information purposes only.