<\/p>\n
A US federal court has mandated Anna\u2019s Archive to pay approximately $322 million after being found to have scraped vast amounts of music data from Spotify without permission, signalling a potential shift in how courts address digital piracy and data scraping.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
A US federal court has ordered Anna\u2019s Archive to pay about $322 million after finding the shadow library had scraped vast amounts of music data from Spotify without permission. According to court filings reported by Tom\u2019s Hardware and Ars Technica, the default judgment covers both copyright infringement and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and includes a permanent injunction aimed at cutting off access through domain and hosting providers.<\/p>\n
The case stems from a lawsuit brought by Spotify and the three major record labels, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, after Anna\u2019s Archive said it had collected metadata for roughly 256 million tracks and audio files for 86 million songs. Reuters-style reporting in Ars Technica says the archive did not respond to the complaint, allowing the court to enter default judgment.<\/p>\n
Tom\u2019s Hardware reported that the damages are split largely between Spotify, which was awarded $300 million under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, and the labels, which together were awarded $22.2 million for infringement claims covering a smaller set of works. The award was based on statutory damages, with the plaintiffs arguing that Anna\u2019s Archive had bypassed Spotify\u2019s protections and intended to distribute the files through peer-to-peer networks.<\/p>\n
The judgment may matter beyond this dispute because it signals that courts can impose substantial penalties even where the defendant is anonymous and direct financial recovery is uncertain. Tom\u2019s Hardware noted that the decision could become relevant in future cases involving scraping and AI training data, while Ars Technica reported that Anna\u2019s Archive has already tried to stay online by shifting providers after earlier takedown efforts.<\/p>\n
The broader fight is also about how far so-called preservation projects can go before they collide with copyright law. Anna\u2019s Archive has long described itself as an archival effort, but the music industry argues that copying and redistributing protected material without licences or payment to rights holders crosses a clear legal line.<\/p>\n
Inspired by headline at:<\/strong> [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n