Published On: Wed, Aug 12th, 2020

Court dismisses Genius lawsuit over lyrics-scraping by Google

A state justice has discharged a high-profile box display unsportsmanlike control by Google, that was hold red-handed regulating lyrics apparently scraped from Genius. Unfortunately for a latter, a complaints volume to a copyright defilement — that wasn’t what a plaintiffs alleged, falling a case.

The lawsuit, filed in December, indicted Google of violating Genius’s terms of use and unjustly enriching itself by scraping lyrics on a site to be displayed on searches for songs. So, for instance, someone acid for “Your Love is Killing Me lyrics” would be shown a lyrics immediately instead of being sent to a site like Genius that hosted them.

That’s satisfactory play, solely when a lyrics are taken directly from those sites (directly or around an accomplice) yet accede or detrimental — and Genius valid that Google was doing this by deftly stealing “RED HANDED” inside lyrics, regulating Morse formula shaped from curly and true apostrophes. Devious!

Google will start attributing lyrics in a hunt formula to their third-party providers

Caught thus, Google pronounced it would mend a ways, and shortly was hold again, doing a same thing regulating a same method. It’s positively adequate to make we wish to see a large G take some licks, and Genius filed a lawsuit anticipating to grasp only that.

The problem is this: Genius isn’t a copyright hilt for these lyrics, it only licenses them itself. Its allegations opposite Google, Judge Margo Brodie of a Eastern District of New York determined, volume to copyright violations, in inlet if not in name, and copyright is outward Brodie’s jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants “scraped” and used their lyrics for distinction volume to allegations that Defendants done unapproved reproductions of Plaintiff’s verse transcriptions and profited off of those unapproved reproductions, that is function that falls underneath sovereign copyright law.

As to allegations of astray business conduct, Brodie says those too are copyright disputes:

Plaintiff has not purported that Defendants breached any fiduciary avocation or trusted relationship, or that Defendants wasted Plaintiff’s trade secrets. Instead, Plaintiff’s claims are precisely a form of misappropriation claims that courts have consistently hold are preempted by a Copyright Act.

Because all a causes for censure are preempted by sovereign law, Brodie unequivocally has no choice yet to flog a box out:

Given that a Court finds that all of Plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by a Copyright Act, and Plaintiff has not asserted any sovereign law claims, a Court dismisses a Complaint for disaster to state a claim.

It’s a bit disappointing, of course, to see a association like Google rivet in shenanigans and get divided with it (though let us not forget that Genius has intent in some shenanigans of a own). But a authorised complement is all about channel your t’s and dotting your i’s. If someone steals your wallet, we don’t credit them of embezzlement, even yet they’re kind of a same thing.

In this box Genius’s authorised group indispensable to move a copyright complaint, yet presumably were incompetent to due to not being a copyright owners themselves. (Copyright law is notoriously obtuse, generally in questions of digital copies and licensing.)

Genius could record a new lawsuit or only cut their losses, carrying given Google a really open black eye; a scraping use even got some play during a new tech antitrust hearings in Congress. Certainly Google is on notice — yet make no mistake, they’re popping champagne in Mountain View tonight.

About the Author