X’s response to the copyright infringement claims filed by the group of record labels showcases a vigorous defense strategy aimed at refuting the allegations. By denying all claims of copyright infringement, X is taking a firm stance against the accusations leveled against it.
The dismissal of several key allegations by the Nashville federal court is a significant development in X’s favor, indicating potential weaknesses in the record labels’ case. X is now seeking to build on this momentum by challenging the remaining contributory infringement claims.
One of X’s notable defenses is its assertion that the damages sought by the music companies are “unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate.” This argument suggests that the record labels are seeking compensation that exceeds what would be considered fair and reasonable under the law. By highlighting this aspect, X aims to undermine the credibility of the record labels’ claims and potentially reduce the financial liability it may face.
Overall, X’s response underscores its determination to contest the copyright infringement lawsuit and protect its interests. As the legal battle unfolds, both sides will continue to present their arguments, and the outcome will likely hinge on the strength of their respective positions and the evidence presented in court.
In a legal showdown that unfolded in a Nashville federal court last spring, heavyweight music labels like Universal Music, Sony Music, and EMI accused X Corp of fostering rampant copyright infringement.
The music industry giants alleged that the social media giant turned a blind eye to takedown notices and lacked a robust termination policy to curb the illicit sharing of copyrighted material.
According to the complaint, X Corp’s approach mirrored that of Twitter, where known repeat infringers and instances of infringement were allegedly overlooked, despite readily available measures to address them.
Seeking to quash the lawsuit early on, X Corp vehemently contested the allegations, filing a motion to dismiss the case. While the court partially sided with X Corp by dismissing direct and vicarious copyright infringement claims, certain contributory infringement claims remained.
Judge Trauger’s ruling, while acknowledging X Corp’s position, emphasized that ease of uploading content and monetization were not exclusive to infringing material but applied across the board.
Despite this partial victory, the legal battle is far from over. Allegations surrounding X Corp’s repeat infringer policy and its perceived leniency towards verified users with a blue checkmark persist, ensuring that the lawsuit will proceed on these grounds.
The judge’s observation that X Corp seemingly enforces its copyright policies less rigorously for paying “verified” users adds an intriguing layer to the case.
In response to the ongoing legal proceedings, X Corp submitted a robust 29-page rebuttal, vehemently denying any wrongdoing, including claims of an inadequate repeat infringer policy.
The music companies’ claim and the concise reply from X shown below are exemplary.
Claim: “Twitter has not adopted, reasonably implemented, nor informed subscribers or account holders of, a policy to terminate users engaging in repeated acts of copyright infringement.”
X’s Response: “Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 154 of the Complaint”
In response to other allegations, X notes that the music companies are quoting and paraphrasing out of context. This includes a statement from X owner Elon Musk, who previously criticized copyright law and stated that an overzealous DMCA is a “plague on humanity“.
This is how that statement was used by the music companies in their complaint.
X asserts that the portrayal of Elon Musk’s comments was taken out of context. While not specifying how, X clarifies that Musk’s remarks were made in response to a news article discussing a bill that aimed to limit copyright protection terms for rightsholders, including Disney.
“Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to characterize, paraphrase and quote, selectively and out of context, a post by Elon Musk, and that the content of any such post, considered fully and in context, would speak for itself. Defendant otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 182 of the Complaint,” X stated in its response.
In addition to refuting the copyright infringement allegations, X’s formal response to the complaint includes several affirmative defenses. For instance, X argues that any contributory liability claim is invalid because any copyright infringement was “innocent and not willful.” Furthermore, X contests the requested damages, which could potentially amount to $250 million, as “unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate.”
X’s response to the complaint isn’t the endpoint, it kicks off the rest of the proceeding where both sides will have to argue their positions on the merits. There is a case management conference scheduled for next month, where the court will likely set a trial date.
