Richard S. Busch (TN Bar # 14594)
KING & BALLOW
315 Union Street, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone:
(615) 726-5422
Facsimile:
(615) 726-5417
Attorney For Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

BLUEWATER MUSIC SERVICES
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

No. _____________

vs.
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT

SPOTIFY USA INC.,
Defendant.

JURY DEMAND
COMPLAINT
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is an action for willful copyright infringement brought by Plaintiff Bluewater

Music Services Corporation (hereinafter “Bluewater” or “Plaintiff”) against Defendant Spotify
USA Inc. (“Spotify” or “Defendant”) for its unauthorized use of the musical compositions listed
in the attached Exhibits (the “Infringed Works”) in blatant disregard of the exclusive rights that
are vested in copyright owners.
2.

As alleged more fully below, Spotify has built a multi-billion dollar business with

no assets other than the songs made available on its digital platform. Yet, as recent class action
lawsuits and settlements against it have firmly established, Spotify built its behemoth by willfully
1
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1

 infringing on the copyrights of creators of music worldwide without building the infrastructure
needed to ensure that songs appearing on the Spotify service were properly licensed or that
appropriate royalties were paid on time (or at all) in compliance with the United States Copyright
Act. Spotify’s apparent business model from the outset was to commit willful copyright
infringement first, ask questions later, and try to settle on the cheap when inevitably sued.
3.

For the reasons discussed below, prior lawsuits and settlements are woefully

inadequate (at least in part because the lion’s share of the money goes into the pockets of the major
publishing companies, whose affiliated record labels own a substantial share of Spotify in the
aggregate and thus have no incentive to truly seek appropriate redress for Spotify’s wrongdoing),
and do not nearly compensate publishers for the value of Spotify built on unlawful exploitation,
or punish Spotify sufficiently for its willful infringement. Spotify’s actions since its launch have
not only been willful, but brazenly so, and justify the imposition of the maximum award of
statutory damages in the amount of $150,000.00 for each act of copyright infringement.
4.

There are 2,339 copyrighted works involved in this action that are collectively listed

on Exhibit A attached hereto. Any license Spotify may have had to reproduce and stream these
compositions was terminated, no later than November of 2016, following the termination letters
sent to Spotify in October of 2016, for failure to comply with the law and applicable requirements.
Yet, on information and belief, Spotify has continued to reproduce and stream these musical
compositions and has committed willful copyright infringement thereby. Bluewater has also been
able to confirm that, at least since 2015, and, upon information and belief, since inception, it
received no payment at all on 474 of these Exhibit A musical compositions, separated out on
Exhibit B attached hereto, meaning that it is likely that no license was ever obtained by Spotify,
and Spotify has been committing willful copyright infringement with respect to these musical

2
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 2

 compositions since inception. The same is true of the 978 Exhibit A musical compositions,
separated out on Exhibit C attached hereto, which, upon information and belief, have also streamed
on Spotify but no payment was ever received by Bluewater. The only difference between the
Exhibit B musical compositions, and those identified on Exhibit C, is that Bluewater has been able
to identify ISRC codes (explained below) with respect to the Exhibit B musical compositions.
Nonetheless, upon information and belief, the Exhibit C musical compositions have at least one
associated sound recording that embodies the composition that has streamed on Spotify. Finally,
there are 887 of these Exhibit A musical compositions, separated out on Exhibit D attached hereto,
for which incomplete or partial payments have been made by Spotify and Spotify otherwise failed
to comply with Section 115 of the United States Copyright Act. Any license Spotify ever had
related to these musical compositions, and all other Exhibit A musical compositions, was therefore
terminated for failure to comply with Section 115 of the United States Copyright Act. In all, upon
information and belief, and based upon market share and Spotify’s own stream count numbers
provided within its service, there are many millions of illegal/unpaid streams of the Exhibit A
musical compositions involved in this action.
5.

Spotify has never provided proof of licensing with respect to any of the Exhibit A

musical compositions even though Bluewater requested in writing proof of licensing.
6.

In light of the willful actions of Spotify, including willful blindness, anything less

than the maximum $150,000 statutory damage award for each of the Infringed Works involved
herein would encourage infringement, amount to a slap on the wrist, and reward a multi-billion
dollar company, about to go public, that rules the streaming market through a pattern of willful
infringement on a staggering scale.

3
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 3

 PARTIES
7.

Bluewater is a Tennessee Corporation with its principal place of business located at

705 2nd Ave. South, Nashville, Tennessee 37210. Bluewater owns and/or administers each of the
musical compositions identified in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Each
of the compositions identified in Exhibit A have either been duly registered with the United States
Copyright Office or an application for copyright registration has been filed with the United States
Copyright Office. For those musical compositions identified in Exhibit A for which Bluewater
administers but does not own the copyright, Bluewater has standing to bring this action for copyright
infringement because the respective administration agreements with the owners of the musical
composition assigns Bluewater the right to do so.
8.

Defendant Spotify USA Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business at 45 W. 18th Street, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10011. Spotify maintains a corporate
office in Nashville, Tennessee located at 1033 Demonbreun Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.

The jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the copyright infringement claims is

based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) in that the controversy arises under the Copyright Act
and Copyright Revision Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.), which is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
10.

This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has

continuous and systematic contacts within the Middle District of Tennessee such that it can be found
to be essentially at home within this Judicial District.
11.

This Court has specific jurisdiction over Spotify for numerous reasons, including, but

not limited to, the following:

4
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 4

 12.

Upon information and belief, Spotify has maintained a strong presence in Nashville,

including its Nashville office, since 2013 and is dedicated to building Spotify’s brand and
relationships within the Nashville music community. Upon information and belief, Spotify’s
Nashville office is designed to broker deals with, as well as secure licenses for its streaming services
from, record labels, music publishers, and others in Nashville and elsewhere.
13.

Upon information and belief, Spotify specifically targets Tennessee through its

licensing and distribution agreements. Upon information and belief, Spotify provides targeted ads to
individuals in Tennessee and Tennessee residents, including those who have streamed the Infringed
Works in Tennessee. Upon information and belief, Spotify provides its streaming platform to
individuals in Tennessee and Tennessee residents, who have used such platform to stream the
Infringed Works at issue in this case.
14.

Upon information and belief, Spotify has hired top executives from within the music

industry to head its streaming operations in the Nashville office. Spotify’s Nashville based
employees include executives such as Copeland Isaacson, who heads Spotify’s Label & Artist
Relations division for the Nashville office, and John Marks, who has been named Spotify’s Global
Head of Country Music Programming and other employees, including employees directly involved
in songwriter relations.
15.

Additionally, Spotify’s interactive app and website includes subscription-based users

located in Tennessee. Upon information and belief, Spotify has thousands of registered users in
Tennessee, and the musical compositions involved in this action have been streamed to users
throughout Tennessee. As a result, the brunt of the harm caused by Spotify’s actions is felt in
Tennessee. Upon information and belief, limited jurisdictional discovery would uncover a number
of other jurisdictionally relevant contacts.

5
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 5

 16.

Bluewater is a Tennessee corporation and its principal place of business is Tennessee,

so Spotify’s actions not only are directed at a Tennessee citizen as a result, but the brunt of harm
caused by Spotify’s actions has been felt in Tennessee. The Middle District of Tennessee has a
considerable interest in adjudicating disputes wherein Tennessee residents are the target of the harm
resulting from exploitation of the Infringed Works.
17.

Spotify has been put on notice by Bluewater of the illegal infringements, and has

nonetheless continued to infringe the Bluewater compositions. Spotify was thus, through this
notification, and prior communications with Bluewater, well aware that Bluewater is a Tennessee
entity. Spotify was also well aware of its infringing activities prior to being placed on notice through
other complaints, lawsuits, and otherwise, but has continuously refused to comply with United
States Copyright law.
18.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(a) because

Spotify is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Judicial District and has committed unlawful acts
of infringement in this Judicial District.
FACTS
19.

Bluewater is an independent music publisher and copyright administration company

that owns and administers thousands of successful musical compositions, a number of which have
achieved worldwide success. Bluewater is a direct member of 25 performance right and mechanical
right societies that cover 50 countries throughout the world.
20.

Bluewater collectively owns or administers the copyrights of the Infringed Works

listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto, all of which have either been duly registered or are pending
registration with the United States Copyright Office.

6
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 6

 21.

In addition to administering the copyrights it owns, Bluewater also administers the

copyrights in the catalogs of numerous other music publishers. In its role as copyright
administrator, Bluewater is tasked with enhancing the value of the copyrights it represents, which
includes, but is not limited to, negotiating and issuing mechanical licenses. Bluewater has the right
to conduct all administration activities on behalf of the publishers of the songs it represents,
including PRO registrations, registrations of those compositions with the United States Copyright
Office, negotiating and issuing licenses, collecting royalties, and filing lawsuits for copyright
infringement.
22.

Spotify does not have a license to display, reproduce, distribute, and/or stream the

Infringed Works due to either not procuring an appropriate license as required, or due to losing
any license it may have had by not complying with the law and applicable requirements when
placed on notice and asked to do so. As the administrator and/or owner of the Infringed Works,
Bluewater is entitled to full relief pursuant to the United States Copyright Act.
23.

Spotify is an interactive music streaming service (among other business services)

that allows its users to access and enjoy its catalog of musical recordings using its downloadable
application and web-based platform. As an interactive service, Spotify must obtain either a direct
or compulsory license allowing for the streaming of each musical composition on its service.
Spotify’s business model offers tiered participation levels to its users, including a “premium”
subscription level that allows users to interactively stream “any song” without ads, and a lower
tier, non-subscription level that is supported by advertisements which play at regular intervals
during use in exchange for providing users the ability to interactively stream nearly the entire
Spotify library of music for free. In 2016, Spotify claimed it had more than 100 million global
users that streamed songs hundreds of billions of times, which included both paying subscribers

7
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 7

 as well as users that utilize its free, ad-supported platform. In March of 2017, Spotify announced
it hit a milestone claiming it has more than 50 million paying users. In June of 2017, Spotify
announced that it surpassed 140 million global monthly active users.
24.

To better understand Spotify and its service, and its willfully infringing behavior, as

well as how it has been able to grow in value despite the music industry’s awareness of its nonexistent and non-compliant systems, it is important to understand the background of the everevolving music industry and how enforcement of copyright law has grown from an industry of illegal
downloads to a history of sanctioned illegal streaming.
25.

In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing companies became

popular and allowed individuals to share music over the Internet. In response to these companies
allowing users to share copyrighted works without proper licenses, the Recording Industry
Association of America (“RIAA”), a trade organization comprised of United States record
companies, filed lawsuits against major P2P file sharing companies, including Napster, Scour,
Aimster, Audiogalaxy, Morpheus, Grokster, Kazza, iMesh, and LimeWire.
26.

On September 8, 2003, the RIAA sued 261 American music fans for sharing music

on P2P file sharing networks. Within five years, the recording industry had filed, settled, or
threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals, including children, grandparents,
unemployed single mothers, and college professors, and sought and obtained judgments in many
cases for the maximum $150,000 statutory damage award per illegal download. These same record
labels and others who were so vigilant in protecting their copyrights now own part of Spotify and
are set to make a fortune through Spotify’s public offering.
27.

Once P2P file sharing networks were effectively shut down, major music companies

turned to so-called legal download and streaming services as a way to generate revenue from their

8
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 8

 pre-recorded sound recordings. This income became the major source of revenue from the recordings
that the labels controlled.
28.

Spotify was established in 2005 by Daniel Elk and Martin Lorentzon in Stockholm,

Sweden. The company released its first public beta version in 2007. Spotify then launched on the
Apple operating system in 2007. Spotify began advertising through its interactive applications in
2008 and officially launched in the United States in June 2011. Upon information and belief, at the
time of its United States launch, Spotify had between 15,000,000 and 25,000,000 sound recordings
available to stream. Upon information and belief, the number of sound recordings in its service is
now over 30,000,000.
29.

By 2011, Spotify had reached 1,000,000 paid subscribers. By 2013, Spotify had

24,000,000 active users who had streamed 4.5 billion hours of music in 2013 alone.
30.

By that time, Spotify had raised enormous amounts of money to support its

business. Spotify originally raised two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000.00), and then, by
the end of 2013, raised another three hundred fifty million dollars ($350,000,000.00), bringing its
total raised at that time to over half a billion dollars ($500,000,000.00).
31.

By 2015, Spotify announced it had 75,000,000 users overall, which included

20,000,000 paying users.
32.

By the middle of 2016, Spotify raised yet another two billion dollars

($2,000,000,000.00) on top of the aforementioned five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000.00),
bringing its total capital raised to over two billion five hundred million dollars
($2,500,000,000.00).
33.

Under the United States Copyright Act, the owner of a copyright is entitled to

certain exclusive rights, including the right to reproduce and distribute a musical work. Every

9
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 9

 sound recording contains two separate and distinct copyrights – one copyright for the sound
recording itself and one copyright for the underlying musical composition. Spotify will often make
different recordings of a composition available for streaming on demand, which Spotify displays
through an interface in conjunction with the name of the artist performing the recording, the name
of the recording and other “metadata”, and a “play” button that the user can click to play the song.
In all cases, to allow for the on-demand interactive stream of a song, Spotify must have two
separate licenses and pay two separate royalties. One license is for the sound recording and the
second, separate license, is for the embodied musical composition. The former generates revenue
for the record label, while the latter generates revenue for songwriters and their music publishers.
34.

A mechanical license grants the right to reproduce and distribute copyrighted

musical compositions for use on compact discs, records, tapes, ringtones, permanent digital
downloads, interactive streams, and other digital formats. Anyone wishing to use a musical work
is required to license the composition separately from the recording either through a direct
voluntary mechanical license secured by negotiating with individual copyright owners, or, in the
United States, through a compulsory mechanical license.
35.

In order to obtain a compulsory license under the Copyright Act, as detailed in

Section 115, a licensee, such as Spotify, is required to send a notice of intent to use a musical
composition (“NOI”) to each copyright owner before or within thirty days after making a
phonorecord embodying the musical composition, and before distributing the work. If the name
and address of the copyright owner is not known, the distributor, after putting effort into finding
them, is then required to file the NOI in the Licensing Division of the Copyright Office, and then
submit the statutory filing fee for each title listed in the notice in a single payment and make checks

10
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 10

 payable to the Register of Copyrights or authorize deduction from a deposit account for the filing
fee.
36.

The NOI serves the important role of requiring the music service to connect the

sound recording to the composition before it makes the sound recording live so when it generates
revenue the service knows whom to pay and alerts the copyright owner(s) to the use of their
musical compositions and the right to fair and legally required compensation for that use. Under
United States Copyright law, the failure to timely file or serve an NOI forecloses the possibility of
a compulsory license and, in the absence of a negotiated license, renders the making and
distribution of phonorecords an act of copyright infringement with respect to the underlying
musical composition.
37.

According to Section 115 of the Copyright Act, once a license for the musical

composition is obtained, the licensee must follow the terms of a direct license or the statutory
requirements for a compulsory license which include, but are not limited to: (1) making accurate
royalty payments accompanied by a compliant monthly accounting statement, (2) providing
itemized details as to how the per stream rate was calculated, (3) rendering annual certified
accountings to the copyright owner or authorized agent, (4) making timely payments to the
administrator on or before the 20th day of each month for every phonorecord/recording made and
distributed in accordance with the license, and (5) curing any breach of these requirements within
30 days of the notification. Spotify, like every other person or entity, must obtain a license and
comply with the requirements of the license for the works it includes in its catalog.
38.

Prior to launching in the United States, Spotify made some efforts to license sound

recordings by reaching out to labels and distributors for the metadata of each recording, but did
not attempt to collect any information about the compositions that each recording embodied. It

11
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 11

 built no infrastructure capable of collecting compositional information, and failed to ask for such
information. Additionally, in a race to be the first to market, Spotify made the deliberate decision
to distribute sound recordings without building any internal infrastructure to license compositions
properly or comply with the requirements of Section 115 of the Copyright Act.
39.

Spotify did not build proper infrastructure or require sound recording rights holders

to provide data as to what specific composition the sound recording embodies. Upon information
and belief, Spotify makes recordings live for streaming without, in many cases: (1) knowing the
identity of songwriters and publishers that should be receiving royalties; and (2) knowing or caring
whether the compositions have been licensed. Songwriters and publishers are therefore placed in
the very difficult position of identifying the compositions streaming on Spotify and whether
licenses exist or royalties are owed.
40.

Instead of attempting to comply with United States Copyright law and build a

proper system to identify the compositions available through its service, Spotify contracted with a
third-party company called the Harry Fox Agency (“HFA”). HFA is a provider of rights
management, licensing, and royalty services for the United States music industry that specifically
issues licenses, and collects and distributes royalties on behalf of musical copyright owners. At the
time of contracting with Spotify, HFA was owned by the National Music Publishing Association
(“NMPA”), a trade group representing the interests of its members, including, but not limited to,
the major music companies that will reap the financial benefits of a Spotify public offering. In
October 2015, the NMPA sold HFA for a reported twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) to the
private equity owned United States performing rights organization SESAC. Upon information and
belief, approximately ten to fifteen percent (10% to 15%) of the sale price was held in an “escrow”

12
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 12

 account to be liquidated at a future date if there were no unforeseen financial liabilities against
HFA, for example, not getting licenses or paying inaccurately as it did for Spotify.
41.

At the time that Spotify hired HFA, HFA had a database with less than the number

of recordings and compositions available in the Spotify library. Between this insufficient database,
Spotify’s piecemeal system, and HFA’s own lack of a system capable of complying with the
statutory requirements for compulsory licensing, copyright infringement was assured. Despite
knowledge of these deficiencies, Spotify moved forward with a non-compliant system that allowed
for massive infringement from its launch in the United States in June 2011.
42.

Upon information and belief, there are approximately 35 billion (35,000,000,000)

unpaid streams that occurred from June of 2011 to the end of 2015. This means Spotify failed to
pay approximately fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000.00) in royalties. According to a recent
NMPA communication with its members, this figure is estimated to increase to another 140 billion
(140,000,000,000) to 280 billion (280,000,000,000) unpaid streams totaling between sixty million
dollars ($60,000,000.00) to one hundred twenty million dollars ($120,000,000.00) through 2019.
Spotify has not only admitted to its failure to pay out these royalties, but also has shown it knew it
was unlicensed for many of them and, if licensed, was not paying them accurately, on time, or in
compliance with any of the other Section 115 requirements, thereby making the royalty statements
non-compliant.
43.

Nevertheless,

despite

raising

over

two

and

one-half

billion

dollars

($2,500,000,000.00), Spotify has refused to invest in building a compliant solution. To make
matters worse, when Spotify’s scheme is discovered by a rights holder, and Spotify is notified of
lack of a license or termination of licenses due to the failure to comply with legal requirements,
Spotify nonetheless continues to willfully and knowingly exploit the compositions.

13
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 13

 44.

Spotify’s history is riddled with these notifications. It has previously been pursued

for failure to properly license compositions or pay for licenses, most notably by the NMPA on behalf
of its membership. Spotify was quick to enter into a settlement agreement that required it to pay out
the fifteen million seven hundred thousand dollars ($15,700,000.00) in unpaid royalties it was
holding onto along with an additional five million dollar ($5,000,000.00) penalty to those NMPA
members who voluntarily participated in the settlement. Sadly, this “settlement” was woefully
insufficient financially and nothing more than a way to allow the major music companies, who are
the largest members of the NMPA, to help Spotify along to a public offering as, upon information
and belief, collectively their affiliated record labels own over 18% of Spotify and stand to make over
seven hundred million dollars ($700,000,000.00) each with Spotify’s thirteen billion dollar
($13,000,000,000.00) public offering.
45.

In addition, the NMPA settlement did nothing to resolve the outstanding issues with

the Spotify licensing and royalty payment system as the settlement allowed Spotify to continue to
not pay accurately and did not require it to build any systems moving forward. Add to this that the
NMPA settlement only applies to the select members of the NMPA. Finally, the settlement itself
encouraged the continued infringement by Spotify as evidenced by the NMPA’s recent June, 2017
email that indicated that the amount of unpaid royalties would grow after the settlement agreement
was entered into (meaning Spotify was not required to put in the needed compliancy systems).
Spotify was and continues to be abundantly aware that its systems were not and are not working and
that it was and is non-compliant with the terms of any license it may have entered into.
46.

In addition to the NMPA settlement for non-compliance and infringement, Spotify

also agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for forty three million four hundred thousand dollars
($43,400,000.00). The intent of the settlement is to compensate rights holders for Spotify’s years of

14
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 14

 infringing actions. However, the settlement is also woefully insufficient to pay songwriters and
publishers for the infringement by Spotify. Upon information and belief, there are over 100,000
unique individuals who meet the criteria to be in the class with an interest in approximately 8,000,000
compositions. Upon information and belief, the class attorneys will be taking approximately 25% of
the settlement payout, which leaves, approximately, a mere thirty-two million dollars
($32,000,000.00) to be divided between the composition owners. Averaging the payout for each
owner, Spotify will be allowed to walk away after paying approximately four dollars ($4.00) per
infringed composition. Such a settlement is essentially an empty gesture that encourages
infringement and is entirely insufficient to remedy years of illegal activity.
47.

The non-financial terms of the class action settlement are also unacceptable as they

force class members to license their works to Spotify moving forward whether they wish to do so or
not. In addition, if Spotify breaches the terms of the license, which it has already indicated it will do
in the NMPA settlement, the rights-holder can never terminate the license as the class settlement is
forcing the rights-holder to grant a license “in perpetuity.” Therefore, even if Spotify breaches and
does not cure, Spotify can never be held liable for infringement. It now has a license and no incentive
to build the required systems as there is no penalty if they continue to operate without doing so. In
effect, Spotify is being rewarded for willfully infringing on copyrights.
48.

Upon information and belief, a number of major record labels, including Sony

BMG, Universal Music Group, Warner Music, and EMI, allowed Spotify to use their sound
recordings in its service in exchange for being allowed to purchase a stake in Spotify at below
market value. In some cases, equity in Spotify was provided to sound recording rights holders for
no additional compensation. As a result of these deals, upon information and belief, the major
record labels own an approximate eighteen percent (18%) stake in Spotify. With a successful

15
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 15

 Spotify public offering, this allows the labels to potentially generate over half a billion dollars
each, none of which they need to share with the copyright creators, performing artists, or
songwriters. These record labels, who control their affiliated publishing companies, therefore had
no incentive to pursue or truly hold Spotify accountable for its actions.
49.

Spotify’s illegal behavior and its willful and deliberate disregard of United States

Copyright laws is clearly demonstrated in Bluewater’s case, which shows specific efforts by
Bluewater to gain compliance from Spotify to no avail.
50.

To assure Spotify and its agent HFA always knew which compositions Bluewater

controlled and represented, Bluewater made certain to regularly notify HFA, Spotify’s agent, of
all compositions it controlled and represented. These notifications date back to Spotify’s launch in
the United States in 2011. The notifications included a complete list of all compositions and, for
each composition, the songwriter, the publisher, and the percentage of the composition Bluewater
controlled, as well as master recording release information, such as artist name, album title, record
label and release date, whenever available.
51.

After making these efforts to gain compliance from Spotify, Bluewater set out to

determine whether the compositions that it owns and/or administers were properly licensed by
Spotify; whether Spotify had properly identified the compositions on a composition-bycomposition basis; and whether Spotify had paid royalties accurately.
52.

Each recording delivered to Spotify and made available to stream on its service is

required to have a unique 12 digit alphanumeric code called an International Standard Recording
Code (“ISRC”). The ISRC code is the international identification system for sound recordings.
Each ISRC is a unique and permanent identifier for a specific recording, independent of the format
on which it appears (CD, audio file, digital version for streaming, etc.) or the rights holders

16
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 16

 involved. Only one ISRC is to be issued to a track, and an ISRC can never represent more than
one unique recording.
53.

The Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) has been appointed by

the International ISRC Agency to oversee the ISRC system within the United States and its
territories. As the United States Agency, RIAA promotes and monitors the ISRC system within
the United States and its territories as well as issues and assigns ISRCs. Spotify requires that each
sound recording delivered to them have an ISRC in order for that recording to be eligible to be
available to stream in its service. Spotify uses ISRCs in their royalty statements as it provides to
record labels and music publishers a list of each recording and its associated ISRC that has
streamed in its service. However, upon information and belief, Spotify’s data for its sound
recordings (while including the associated ISRCs), does not include all of the compositional data
(including identification of songwriter(s) and music publisher(s)) for the underlying composition
embodied in a sound recording that Spotify makes available for streaming, which makes it very
difficult for music publishers to know for certain whether their musical compositions are streaming
on Spotify, and to ensure that Spotify is paying proper royalties for streams of their compositions.
54.

As a result, while Bluewater, through painstaking analysis, has identified ISRCs for

many of the musical compositions involved in this action (e.g., the Exhibit B musical
compositions), the remaining compositions (e.g., the Exhibit C musical compositions) are all
associated with sound recordings, which, upon information and belief, have streamed on Spotify
without payment to Bluewater, and, in all likelihood, without a license. Spotify’s opaque and
incomplete reporting makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to identify the extent of its
infringement without access to Spotify’s internal systems and information.

17
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 17

 55.

Once Bluewater discovered that Spotify was not accurately paying royalties on

many compositions, and paying no royalties at all for some compositions, they demanded proof of
any licensing from Spotify, as required under 37 C.F.R. § 201.18, and gave specific notice to
terminate any rights Spotify may have claimed it had to stream the sound recordings that embody
its compositions. Spotify did not provide any licenses or proof of licensing. Bluewater then
checked each Spotify royalty statement and payment made to Bluewater dating back to April of
2015, which is the earliest date on which itemized HFA statements are available with ISRC codes,
to identify if Spotify had paid mechanical royalties on all the recordings embodying its
compositions that were live on Spotify. Through this research, Bluewater identified many sound
recordings embodying Bluewater compositions that were, and are, live on Spotify that had
streamed and yet no payment has ever been made. In addition, Bluewater identified compositions
where no payment for any streaming sound recording had ever been paid. This pattern strongly
indicates that the composition was never licensed.
56.

Based on this tangible evidence, Bluewater determined Spotify was in breach of

United States Copyright laws and sent specific notice to Spotify of the breaches.
57.

Between the dates of October 11-18, 2016, Bluewater sent letters to Spotify

notifying them of breach with respect to the Exhibit A musical compositions, demanding proof of
licensing, as well as notifying Spotify that it had no right to make the Infringed Works available for
streaming and that it did not have the right to otherwise exploit the musical compositions contained
in these catalogs. The notice also included a detailed listing of each composition owned and/or
controlled by Bluewater with songwriter name, publisher name, and percentage controlled, that
Spotify was infringing upon. The same lists and information were previously supplied to Spotify’s
agent HFA over the preceding years (and in many cases before Spotify even existed).

18
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: 18

 58.

Bluewater notified Spotify that it had neither negotiated a direct mechanical license

for the use of the musical compositions in these publishing catalogs nor complied with the
requirements for issuing a compulsory license pursuant to Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act.
Finally, Bluewater indicated that if there was a license that it was not able to find one, and that it was
putting Spotify on notice that it was in breach.
59.

Bluewater specifically informed Spotify that as a distributor of sound recordings, it

was required to either obtain a direct mechanical license, or comply with the compulsory license
provisions of Section 115, by sending the qualifying NOI to the copyright owner or to the
Copyright Office before or within thirty (30) days after making, and before distributing, any
phonorecords embodying the compositions.
60.

Bluewater put Spotify on notice that “[f]ailure to timely serve or file a valid NOI

forecloses the possibility of a compulsory license and, in the absence of a negotiated license, renders
the making and distribution of phonorecords actionable as acts of infringement under and fully
subject to the remedies provided by the Copyright Act.”
61.

Additionally, Bluewater informed Spotify that they did not have any record of

timely and valid NOI’s with regard to the compositions owned and/or administered by Bluewater.
Bluewater further informed Spotify they were not aware of any valid direct licenses and
accountings nor payments made thereunder. Bluewater put Spotify on notice that its distribution
of the recordings embodying the compositions at issue have been infringing, and continue to
infringe, copyrights in the Infringed Works.
62.

In February of 2017, Bluewater sent additional letters to Spotify, citing back to the

letters sent in October of 2016, reiterating Spotify’s breach and willful copyright infringement with
respect to the Exhibit A musical compositions. Bluewater informed Spotify that thirty days had

19
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 19 of 25 PageID #: 19

 passed since the October, 2016 breach letter, without Spotify making any attempt to cure its
failures to comply with the law. Bluewater informed Spotify that any and all compulsory licenses
or any other license by which Spotify may have claimed rights (to the extent that any rights ever
existed) had terminated as of November 2016. Bluewater further informed Spotify that all
exploitations of the Exhibit A musical compositions are therefore actionable acts of infringement
under sections 501 of the United States Copyright Act and fully subject to the remedies provided
by sections 502 through 506 of the United States Copyright Act. Bluewater made clear that any
exploitation of the Exhibit A musical compositions by Spotify subsequent to, at least, November
of 2016 will likely be deemed willful copyright infringement.
63.

For any compositions that Spotify claims they obtained a license, Spotify is

required to make royalty payments, accompanied by a monthly statement of account, to the
copyright owner or authorized agent of the owner on or before the 20th day of each month for
every phonorecord made and distributed in accordance with the license. The monthly statement
of account shall be clearly and prominently identified as a “Monthly Statement of Account Under
Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.” See 37 C.F.R. § 210.16.
64.

Spotify further failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 210.16 by failing to file a detailed

annual statement of account, certified by a certified public accountant. Instead of complying with
copyright law and sending a NOI or obtaining a proper license, Spotify chose to willfully infringe
Bluewater’s rights. Because of this, and the other facts mentioned above, Bluewater specifically
gave notice of intention to terminate any license that Spotify could argue they had or any license
they may have had for the compositions at issue in this litigation.
65.

As Section 115 indicates, a licensor has the right to terminate any type of Section

115 license for failure to cure any provision of the licenses, including non-payment of royalties,

20
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 20 of 25 PageID #: 20

 lack of certified statements, or late payments, after 30 days. Furthermore, a material breach of the
license agreement can terminate a license or create a right of recapture. Spotify did not cure its
failure to comply with any Section 115 license it may have initially obtained within 30 days of the
aforementioned letters. Therefore, as provided in Bluewater’s letters to Spotify, any compulsory
or other license Spotify may have initially obtained was terminated. Accordingly, Spotify’s
continued exploitation of the Exhibit A musical compositions have been actionable as acts of willful
infringement under Sections 501 of the United States Copyright Act and fully subject to the remedies
provided by Sections 502, et seq.
66.

All of the foregoing was sufficient to terminate any compulsory license with

Bluewater or any co-owner. Spotify has been, and continues to be, willfully infringing the Exhibit
A musical compositions involved in this action since termination, and, as discussed above, has
likely been illegally distributing those musical compositions identified in Exhibits B and C hereto
without a license since inception.
67.

Following the cure period brought about by the notification letters sent to Spotify

for non-compliance with the statutory mechanical license procedures specified under Section 115
of the United States Copyright Act, Bluewater expressly rejected certain payments made by
Spotify, and informed Spotify that Bluewater is holding the payments in escrow as they are
uncertain as to how to return the money to Spotify. Bluewater, again, expressly reiterated that
Spotify does not have any valid compulsory (or other) licenses with Bluewater and has never
provided proof of licensing as requested.
68.

Under either scenario, whether because Spotify never licensed the compositions, or

because any such licenses have been terminated, Spotify has continued to exploit compositions,

21
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 21 of 25 PageID #: 21

 including the Infringed Works, without a license to do so and has therefore engaged in continuous
actionable acts of copyright infringement.
69.

Spotify’s public defense to its wrongdoing has been to claim that the data is simply

not available for it to track the compositions and the sound recordings that embody them on its
service in order to prevent wholesale copyright infringement. Yet, as the foregoing demonstrates,
that position is simply untrue.
70.

Prior to filing suit, Bluewater, upon further review of its catalog, confirmed that at

least 474 of the compositions that it owns and/or administers, listed on Exhibit B, had at least one
sound recording (and that sound recording’s associated ISRC) that embodied the composition that
were streaming on Spotify. A single composition could have many sound recordings as many
other artists could record the same song. For the 474 Exhibit B musical compositions, whether it
was true that a single sound recording of the song was available on Spotify or many sound
recordings of the composition were available on Spotify, there was no royalty payment made to
Bluewater at all. Upon information and belief, for at least those compositions that Spotify never
paid royalties on at all, Spotify never, at any time, had a license. Further, upon information and
belief, the 978 compositions attached hereto as Exhibit C (those musical compositions which
Bluewater previously cross-referenced against statements received by Spotify based on the name
of the musical composition and name of the music publisher and found no payment) have been
streamed and/or continue to be streamed on Spotify without payment and/or, in all likelihood,
appropriate licenses.
71.

Spotify’s business practices are reminiscent of the primitive illegal file sharing

companies. This is shocking considering the record companies that once made headlines for
vigorously pursuing claims against Napster, children, grandparents, and others, are the same

22
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 22 of 25 PageID #: 22

 companies that have invested in Spotify with a knowledge of Spotify’s lack of systems necessary
to properly license and properly pay for the use of music. However, the fact that the major music
companies collectively stand to make billions of dollars with Spotify’s initial public offering may
explain their actions (or lack thereof).
72.

By knowingly reproducing and distributing musical compositions without the

licenses necessary to legally reproduce and distribute the music, Spotify has been and is willfully
infringing upon the copyrights Bluewater owns and/or administers, as well as the copyrights of
music publishers that are not party to this litigation.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Direct Copyright Infringement
73.

Bluewater repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully

set forth herein.
74.

Spotify has made unauthorized reproductions and engaged in unauthorized

distributions of the Infringed Works. The infringement of these copyrights is in violation of 17
U.S.C. § 106, et seq. and 501.
75.

Spotify has violated many of the exclusive rights enumerated under Section 106 of

the United States Copyright Act by its activities discussed above. Among other things, each stream
of the Infringed Works reproduced by Spotify and/or distributed to end-users constitutes a separate
and distinct act of infringement, for which Spotify is a direct infringer.
76.

Spotify’s conduct has at all times been knowing, willful, and with complete disregard

to Bluewater’s rights and objections.
77.

The infringement by Spotify has been, and continues to be, willful and knowing.

23
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 23 of 25 PageID #: 23

 78.

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), Bluewater is entitled to actual damages, including

the substantial profits of Spotify, as will be proven at trial.
79.

In the alternative, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), Bluewater is entitled to receive the

maximum amount of statutory damages for willful copyright infringement, $150,000.00 per
composition, for each of the more than 2,000 musical compositions identified in Exhibit A hereto.
80.

Bluewater is entitled to its costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 505.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant and for the following relief:
A.

A declaration that Defendant has willfully infringed the Infringed Works in violation

of the Copyright Act;
B.

A declaration that Defendant is directly liable for copyright infringement;

C.

A declaration that Bluewater is entitled to receive all revenue associated with all

exploitations of the Infringed Works, commencing from the date of judgment and for all amounts
not taken into consideration in the judgment;
D.

An award of damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including actual damages,

inclusive of the injury to the market value of their copyright in the Infringed Works, and the profits
of Defendant as will be proven at trial, including a finding that Defendant and other entities under
the Spotify umbrella are “practical partners” of each other and thus jointly and severally liable for
the profits of each other, or, in the alternative, the maximum amount of statutory damages pursuant
to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), $150,000.00 for each act of willful infringement with respect to the more than
2,000 musical compositions involved in the action;
E.

An award of attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505 and under

24
Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 24 of 25 PageID #: 24

 other applicable law;
F. For prewjudgment and post-judgment interest according to law, as applicable; and
G. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), and otherwise, Plaintiff respectfully

demands a trial by jury.

Dated: July 18, 2017

{pin/if?fif? 2 of! 95:6 ii?jf?g: ?1 ill-m?

Richard S. Busch (TN Bar 14594)
KING BALLOW

315 Union Street, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201

Telephone: (615) 726-5422
Facsimile: (615) 726-5417
rbusch@kin2ballow.com

 

25

Case 3:17-cv-01051 Document 1 Filed 07/18/17 Page 25 of 25 PagelD 25