White v. Distrokid

Background

Brian White alleged that he created and copyrighted a set of beats. He claimed that he and Eunice Rivers entered an oral agreement allowing Rivers to use the beats if she continued booking live performances for White and paid him 50% of proceeds from exploiting the beats or music containing them. White alleged that Rivers later stopped meeting those obligations but continued using the beats in an album called “Here I Am.”

White alleged that Rivers uploaded the album to DistroKid. He claimed that DistroKid stored a complete copy, made additional copies, changed the format of at least one copy, and distributed the album to digital music services. White asserted copyright claims against DistroKid, including direct copyright infringement. The court noted that it had dismissed White’s indirect copyright-infringement claims in an earlier opinion. The amended complaint also alleged breach of contract, but this order addressed DistroKid’s motion concerning the direct copyright-infringement claim.

Motion and Legal Standard

DistroKid moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court explained that this motion uses the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make liability plausible, while conclusory legal statements are not accepted as true.

To plead direct copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements of the work. The court further explained that Second Circuit law requires “volitional conduct”—active conduct that causes the copying or distribution. Merely owning, operating, or maintaining an automated system generally does not satisfy that requirement when a user commands the system to perform the challenged actions.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated DistroKid’s Distribution Agreement and Terms of Service as part of the pleadings because the amended complaint referenced or relied on them. The complaint described DistroKid as a platform where a customer uploads music, selects the digital stores, and directs DistroKid to populate those stores with the music. DistroKid’s system then performs actions such as copying, reformatting, and transmitting the files.

The court concluded that the complaint did not allege human involvement by DistroKid in those steps. It found that the allegations described an automated process initiated by Rivers, rather than conduct by a DistroKid employee that actively caused the infringement. Alleging that DistroKid’s system made additional copies, reformatted the album, or distributed it was not enough by itself to show the required volitional conduct.

The court rejected White’s arguments that unrequested copying, reformatting, or DistroKid’s role in selecting potential digital stores established volitional conduct. It also found that contractual provisions showing DistroKid’s oversight of the distribution system did not show that a DistroKid employee caused the particular copying or distribution at issue.

Disposition

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted DistroKid’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court dismissed White’s direct copyright-infringement claims against DistroKid. Because the court stated that White’s only other claim against DistroKid had already been dismissed, DistroKid was no longer a defendant. The case continued against Eunice Rivers. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.