Musi, an ad-supported streaming app that has been accused of violating music copyrights, has accused Apple of taking part in a “backchannel scheme with music-industry conglomerates” to remove the app from the Apple App Store.
The allegation comes after Apple stated that the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and Sony Music Entertainment had complained about the app’s practices, in addition to a previously reported complaint from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).
Musi, whose app was only ever available through Apple’s App store, doesn’t license music from rightsholders and hasn’t built a library of licensed music. Instead, it gives users access to audio of YouTube videos through its own interface. The app reportedly served its own ads on the interface.
A report by Wired earlier this year cited data showing that the Musi app had been downloaded 66 million times since it launched a decade ago, with 8.5 million downloads in 2023 alone.
In September, Apple removed the Musi app from its store, on the basis of a complaint from YouTube that Musi had violated the video platform’s terms of service.
In early October, Musi filed a lawsuit against Apple in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, asking the court for a preliminary and permanent injunction to force Apple to return the app to the App Store.
The lawsuit also seeks compensation for “breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
In a response filed with the court in November, Apple said it had no contractual obligation to keep the Musi app in its store, as the contract allows it to remove the app “at any time, with or without cause.”
But even if that were not the case, “Apple’s decision in this instance followed numerous, credible complaints alleging that the Musi app violates the legal rights of third parties,” the response stated.
“Those complaints include allegations of copyright infringement that have been widely publicized, and are specifically known to Musi, yet omitted from Musi’s filings.”
Musi “removes YouTube advertising content and replaces it with Musi’s own or allows ad-free streaming for a fee,” Apple said.
Apple also said it had “received many complaints from third parties alleging that Musi reproduces copyrighted content from YouTube without authorization from the copyright holders and deprives artists and other rights holders of royalty revenue.”
Among the complainants were the IFPI, the NMPA, and Sony Music, Apple said in its response, which can be read in full here.
“Musi is an audio streaming app that leeches its content offerings from YouTube’s Application Programming Interface (‘API’) to avoid paying copyright licensing fees,” the Apple response stated, quoting the NMPA, which reportedly also requested “that the app be expeditiously removed from the Apple App Store.”
The court filing cited “public reporting” that Musi had earned $100 million in advertising revenue between January 2023 and spring 2024.
Apple argued that being forced to reinstate the Musi app “would essentially force Apple to adjudicate the merits of every allegation of infringement made against an app developer.”
The company said it receives “thousands” of complaints each year, “and adjudicating each of those complaints would be unmanageable and would subject Apple to legal challenges from both developers and complainants.”
“[Apple] received many complaints from third parties alleging that Musi reproduces copyrighted content from YouTube without authorization from the copyright holders and deprives artists and other rights holders of royalty revenue.”
Apple, in a legal filing in Musi v. Apple
In a court filing on Friday (December 6), Musi used Apple’s response to argue that Apple had conspired with music industry groups to remove the app from the App Store.
Apple’s response “reveals that it used its power over the App Store as part of a larger backchannel scheme with music-industry conglomerates bent on Musi’s destruction, and without even informing Musi of discussions that led to its removal,” Musi said in the filing, which can be read in full here.
Arguing that “Apple exercises unprecedented control over the only viable marketplace for digital apps for the most significant mobile platform in the world [iOS],” Musi said Apple had contradicted its “representations that it would remain neutral during the app dispute process.”
The court filing stated that Apple “consistently represented to Musi that it could not and would not arbitrate disputes, and that Musi must work directly with any complainant to resolve their concerns.”
However, Musi argued, “Apple did not act in a neutral role; did not follow the process it set up for itself in resolving app disputes… and instead acted as an arbiter (and without even informing Musi of this fact or providing it with an opportunity to respond). While leaving Musi in the dark, Apple, YouTube, and several music-industry conglomerates decided Musi’s fate through backroom conversations.”
Musi also disputed some of Apple’s assertions of facts, alleging that IFPI “expressly disavowed any claim under US copyright law. IFPI baldly asserted violations of European law, but as Musi’s UK solicitor explained, those claims were baseless.”
Musi also alleged that when it contacted Sony Music Entertainment about its alleged infringement complaint, “SME stated that it had no complaint, and that the complaint belonged to IFPI.”
It added that the NMPA “has never filed an app dispute against Musi or even contacted Musi whatsoever.”
Musi also asserted that its interface “does not interfere” with any ads that YouTube places on videos “to the extent they are included within the publicly-available video media that is streamed by the Musi app’s user.”
“Apple exercises unprecedented control over the only viable marketplace for digital apps for the most significant mobile platform in the world.”
Musi, in a filing in Musi v. Apple
Musi also suggested that Apple’s actions were inconsistent with its previous behavior, arguing that Apple never removed the YouTube app from its App Store despite “a years-long litigation from Viacom… alleging massive copyright infringement.”
The court filing asserted that Apple relied “on a few hit pieces about Musi commissioned by the music industry” as the basis for its information.
Musi also argued that Apple’s developer contract requires it to conduct a “human and/or systematic review” before determining that an app has violated its terms of service if a complaint is filed against an app, and “Apple did not do this.”
Musi’s case is being heard before Judge Eumi K. Lee in the San Francisco Division of the US District Court.
According to a report at Digital Music News in October, since Musi’s removal from the Apple App Store, “several” clone apps have appeared, some of which are available in the App Store.Music Business Worldwide