Suno Goes for the Jugular In Artist-Led Copyright Suit, Strategically Moves to Isolate ‘Core’ Fair Use Training Question

Suno has doubled down on calls to toss most of the infringement lawsuit filed by artists including Tony Justice. The way the AI music generator sees things, partial dismissal will allow the litigants to focus on the “core question” of whether training on protected works sans permission is fair use.

The cash-flush defendant just recently reiterated its position in a reply memorandum, after initially moving to nix most of the amended copyright suit in October. Subsequently, Team Justice argued against dismissal earlier in November.

As many know, this is one of several ongoing infringement actions against Suno, which is grappling with complaints from the major labels, a different group of artists, and others yet.

Furthermore, while they’re spearheading distinct cases, each of the stateside plaintiffs is seeking relief for alleged infringement-adjacent misconduct. Most notably: Alleged DMCA violations stemming from Suno’s alleged bypassing of YouTube’s “rolling cipher” to obtain protected music for training.

We’ve already charted Suno’s defense here: In a nutshell, the company, now involved with stream-ripper Yout’s marathon RIAA showdown, is adamant that the cipher is a copy, not an access, control.

As a result, Suno maintains that it didn’t violate the DMCA at all when allegedly working around the cipher. And for this straightforward reason, the relevant Justice action claim should be dismissed, per the WavTool owner.

“While YouTube’s rolling cipher presents a barrier to parties seeking to download files containing Plaintiffs’ works (making it a copy control), it does not at all restrict or otherwise control one’s ability to access those works,” Suno’s newest filing reads.

“The rolling cipher is a copy control that restricts downloads but does not control access to the works available on YouTube within the meaning of section 1201,” the text continues. “Because it is not unlawful to circumvent a copy control, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim under section 1201.”

Next, Suno is also looking to dismiss a Copyright Act claim concerning allegedly infringing derivative works.

Returning to the amended action for a moment, Justice is specifically accusing the gen AI developer of infringing on “exclusive rights in copyrighted songs…by using them to prepare derivative works.”

But in Suno’s view, the claim fails because the plaintiffs allegedly “failed to identify any Suno-generated output that even arguably resembles their asserted works.”

“Without identifying any works that allegedly infringe their derivative work rights and with no reason why they could not do so, Plaintiffs’ infringement claim cannot move past the pleading stage,” Suno’s reply states.

Finally, Suno is also plowing ahead with an attempt to dismiss an unfair-competition claim – referring in part to “the unfair market advantage Suno” allegedly “obtained by using Plaintiffs’ creative identity and output to compete against them.”

In short, Suno says the claim (originally pertaining to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act) “is not pleaded in the” amended action, which purportedly fails to allege that it (Suno) passed off the plaintiff artists’ services as its own. Additionally, the claim is allegedly “preempted by the Copyright Act.”

With that, all eyes are now on the presiding judge’s dismissal motion determination. In other Suno litigation news, the company today moved to toss (or, alternatively, transfer) on jurisdictional grounds the above-highlighted complaint from Attack the Sound and others.