Judge Eumi Lee denied Concord Music’s request to amend the complaint to add a new claim of copyright infringement based on Anthropic’s alleged bittorenting of files of their musical works allegedly from shadow libraries.
Concord Music alleged, in its motion, that Anthropic’s bittorrenting involving downloading fit within its existing claims of willful infringement, while it sought to add new claims related to the bittorrenting involving uploading of such works for third parties to share.
Concord Music argued: “Among the books Anthropic illegally torrented were many lyric and sheet music anthologies containing Publishers’ musical compositions, including Works in Suit. And when Anthropic used BitTorrent to download Publishers’ works via torrenting, it simultaneously uploaded to the public at large unauthorized copies of the same works, infringing Publishers’ exclusive distribution rights in new ways that Anthropic previously concealed.”
This new claim mimicked the claim in Bartz v. Anthropic, where it was revealed that Anthropic had downloaded pirated book copies from shadow libraries. Ergo, Anthropic called Concord Music’s request “Bartz II.”
According to Bloomberg Law’s Annelise Levy, “Amendment is inappropriate because the publishers failed to diligently investigate the theory of liability based on Anthropic’s downloading of works, Judge Eumi K. Lee said Wednesday at a hearing in San Jose.”
This is a surprising decision. But we will get a better sense of the specific grounds for Judge Lee’s assessment of Concord Music’s failure to diligently investigate a theory of liability in her opinion (which is not yet released). We will be eager to see if res judicata, or claim preclusion, will now apply to the Bartz II claim for bittorrenting.
If so, this is a colossal victory for Anthropic.
This is a surprising decision. But we will get a better sense of the specific grounds for Judge Lee’s assessment of Concord Music’s failure to diligently investigate a theory of liability in her opinion (which is not yet released). We will be eager to see if res judicata, or claim preclusion, will now apply to the Bartz II claim for bittorrenting.
If so, this is a colossal victory for Anthropic. The win is discounted somewhat by the single recovery of statutory damages per work infringed, no matter how many times alllegedly infringed (in downloading, uploading, or training). But, if Judge Lee agrees with Judge Alsup, the training of an AI model is fair use. Concord Music was seeking to turn the case into Bartz II to separate the downloading from the training claims.
Discovery is set to end on October 21, 2025. Concord Music was also seeking a 2 month extension.
UPDATE: Judge Lee issued a minute order denying Concord Music’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint “for the reasons stated on the record.”
But, in a separate order, she granted 3 more weeks of discovery: “Order: Plaintiffs’ 435 Motion to Extend Case Deadlines is GRANTED IN PART. The deadline for the close of fact discovery is hereby extended, from October 21, 2025 to November 12, 2025. The schedule originally set the close of fact discovery for April 2025. ECF No. 262. The deadline has been extended twice since that time. ECF Nos. 305, 416. Given this, the Court will not be inclined to grant a further extension of the fact discovery deadline. Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED in all other respects, and the remaining deadlines are maintained.
Nick Hailey of Oppenheim & Zebrak LLP argued for Concord Music.
Sonal Mehta of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP argued for Anthropic.
DOWNLOAD ANTHROPIC’S OPPOSITION