Hello Guest, welcome to torrentinvites.org - Your #1 source for Torrent Invites!
CLICK HERE to register for free and gain full access to TI.org!
Torrent Invites! Buy, Trade, Sell Or Find Free Invites, For EVERY Private Tracker! HDBits.org, BTN, PTP, MTV, Empornium, Orpheus, Bibliotik, RED, IPT, TL, PHD etc!
1Likes
-
1
Post By Vanonymous
-
Musi Alleges Apple’s App Store Removal Was Orchestrated, Seeks Sanctions
The legal dispute between Apple and music streaming app Musi has taken another unexpected turn. Following Apple's motion for sanctions, which dismissed Musi's allegations that a backroom deal was responsible for the app's removal, Musi has countered with a detailed overview of communications between Apple, YouTube, and music industry officials, while also calling for sanctions.
Last September, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store, affecting millions of users.
Apple’s action wasn’t completely unexpected. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for a long time, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.
Musi Sues Apple
Delisting from the App Store put the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors, but since the tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, Musi took the matter to court.
Musi claimed that the App Store removal was the result of “backroom conversations” between Apple and key music industry players. The app developer alleged this was an “unfair” and “tainted” removal process designed to put it out of business.
Musi requested a preliminary injunction to reinstate the app, but that attempt failed. In January, a California federal court denied the injunction, ruling that Apple did not act unreasonably or in bad faith when it removed the app following complaints from music industry players and YouTube.
Apple Calls for Sanctions
With the underlying lawsuit yet to be resolved, a few weeks ago Apple fired back with a motion for sanctions. According to Apple, the court should sanction Musi for false or misleading allegations, which include the remarks concerning the alleged “backchannel scheme”.
According to Apple, discovery in this case clearly revealed that there were no backroom deals but Musi nonetheless included these claims in its amended complaint.
“[D]iscovery thoroughly disproved Musi’s baseless conspiracy theory that Apple schemed to eliminate the Musi app from the App Store to benefit ‘friends’ in the music industry,” Apple notes.
Apple further alleged that to get its app reinstated after an earlier removal years ago, Musi allegedly faked an UMG email. These alleged misrepresentations are sanctionable, Apple argues, while reiterating that it had received numerous complaints about Musi from various parties over the years.
Musi Fires Back, Requests Sanctions
Last week, Musi responded in court by opposing Apple’s motion and, in turn, requesting sanctions against Apple. The app creator notes that sanctions motions are often used as a tactic of intimidation and harassment and describes Apple’s motion as “a member of that shameful lineage.”
A motion for sanctions is warranted if there are no facts to support the allegations but Musi contends that its claims are supported by credible evidence obtained during discovery.
“None of Musi’s challenged allegations are factually baseless, and all are based on a reasonable and competent inquiry by Musi’s counsel. Apple’s motion should thus be denied, and Apple should itself be sanctioned and required to pay Musi’s attorneys’ fees for opposing its baseless motion.”
‘Not a Simple App Removal’
Apple previously argued that there was no need for backroom discussions as Apple could simply remove Musi under its own terms, with or without previous complaints from rightsholders. Musi doesn’t deny that, but it notes that evidence indicates this isn’t what happened.
Based on evidence gathered through discovery, Musi suggests that there were ongoing discussions behind the scenes to discuss the potential removal of the app. The timeline below reflects Musi’s perspective and interpretation of these events.
– April 11, 2024: A Sony Music Entertainment executive, Jeff Walker, emails senior Apple legal personnel (Elizabeth Miles and Robert Windom) requesting Apple’s assistance in removing the Musi app from the App Store. Specifically, Sony asked for help to “identify a path forward” to “have the Musi app removed from the Apple app store”.
– May 20, 2024: Apple’s Elizabeth Miles holds a call with Sony’s Jeff Walker about the Musi app, at Sony’s request.
– May 24, 2024: Following internal Apple discussions, Apple’s Chief Counsel of Content and Services, Robert Windom, instructs Apple in-house counsel Sean Cameron to “please try to get that meeting set up”. Musi implies that this was a meeting with YouTube.
– Around May 29, 2024: At Cameron’s direction, Apple’s YouTube liaison, Arun Singh, contacts YouTube’s Kelvin Paulino by phone. Musi argues Singh inquired about a March 2023 YouTube complaint that Apple had previously considered “resolved”; Singh testified Paulino initially seemed unaware of Musi or the complaint.
– July 15, 2024: The Call: Apple and YouTube legal teams meet. According to Musi (citing Apple’s own witnesses), Apple counsel Sean Cameron stated Apple considered YouTube’s 2023 complaint “resolved” and, after mentioning other “music industry” complaints, asked YouTube if it wanted to “continue with the [2023] complaint”. YouTube allegedly confirmed ongoing API violations by Musi and expressed intent to pursue the complaint, requesting Apple send an email to formalize this.
– The “Re-Open” Email: Post-call, Apple’s ‘AppStoreNotices’ emailed YouTube Legal: “Per request from the YouTube Legal team… If you would like to re-open your claim against this app, please specify the rights you believe are being infringed…”.
– August 20, 2024: Apple’s Elizabeth Miles has a call with National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) representatives regarding Musi, at the NMPA’s request.
– September 11, 2024: The NMPA sends Apple a letter supporting YouTube’s complaint against Musi.
Turning the Tables
Musi believes this is sufficient to back up its claim that the app’s removal was the result of “backroom conversations” between Apple and key music industry players. In any case, it argues that a motion for sanctions is not warranted, as this wasn’t a simple removal process.
To strengthen its claim, Musi cites an email from Apple’s Elizabeth Miles who, after Musi was removed, noted that it was a “complex process”.
According to Musi, Apple’s motion for sanctions is baseless and should therefore be denied. Turning the tables, the app devloper asked the court to sanction Apple for improper use of a sanctions motion.
Last edited by Vanonymous; 1 Day Ago at 02:29 PM.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules