<\/p>\n
A Manhattan federal judge has permitted a significant copyright infringement claim to advance in a dispute involving AI music generator Udio and YouTube\u2019s encryption measures, highlighting legal debates over digital safeguards and AI training data.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
A Manhattan federal judge has allowed a key copyright claim to proceed in the dispute between UMG Recordings and Uncharted Labs, the company behind the AI music generator Udio, after finding that the labels had plausibly alleged circumvention of YouTube\u2019s protection measures. According to the court, the record companies\u2019 theory that Uncharted Labs used a so-called stream-ripping tool to pull protected songs from YouTube was enough at this stage to support a claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.<\/p>\n
The ruling turns on how the law treats technological safeguards. The plaintiffs argued that YouTube\u2019s “rolling cipher” encryption operates as an access control, meaning a barrier designed to stop users from reaching protected works without permission. Uncharted Labs countered that the measure functioned more like a copy control, which would weaken the DMCA theory. The court was not persuaded to dismiss the claim on the pleadings, saying the labels had alleged enough to suggest that the encryption protected access to the songs and that it may have been bypassed.<\/p>\n
That distinction matters because the DMCA draws a line between tools that block access and systems that merely prevent copying. In its analysis, the court relied on earlier cases involving DVD encryption, where courts have treated encryption as an access restriction rather than simply a copying restraint. At the same time, the judge left open the possibility that Uncharted Labs could renew its argument later, once the factual record is more developed.<\/p>\n
The case is part of a broader wave of litigation over generative AI and copyrighted music. The labels say their works were ingested without consent to train Udio\u2019s model, a claim that fits into a larger industry fight over how AI systems obtain their training data and whether existing copyright law is enough to police that process. For now, the decision means the anti-circumvention claim survives and the lawsuit moves deeper into discovery.<\/p>\n
Inspired by headline at:<\/strong> [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n