Anthropic Accused of Pirating 20,000+ Songs in Massive Copyright Lawsuit

By TechCrunch Staff

A coalition of leading music publishers, spearheaded by industry giants Concord Music Group and Universal Music Group, has launched a blockbuster legal assault against Anthropic, alleging the AI powerhouse illegally downloaded and used over 20,000 copyrighted musical works—including sheet music, lyrics, and full compositions—to train its flagship model, Claude.

In a bombshell announcement Wednesday, the publishers said the damages sought could exceed $3 billion, potentially making this one of the largest non-class action copyright cases in U.S. history. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, is the latest in a growing wave of legal challenges targeting AI companies over their training data practices.

A Familiar Legal Playbook

The suit was filed by the same high-powered legal team behind the landmark Bartz v. Anthropic case, where a group of authors accused the company of using their copyrighted books without permission to train Claude. That case ended with a $1.5 billion settlement, with affected writers receiving roughly $3,000 per work for approximately 500,000 copyrighted works.

While $1.5 billion may sound staggering, it’s a relative drop in the bucket for Anthropic, which is currently valued at $183 billion following a $13 billion Series F funding round last September.

From Books to Beats

The music publishers initially sued Anthropic over the use of about 500 copyrighted songs. However, during the discovery phase of the Bartz case, they uncovered evidence that Anthropic had also pirated thousands of additional musical works. When the publishers sought to amend their original lawsuit to include these new claims, the court denied the motion in October, ruling they had failed to investigate the piracy allegations earlier.

Rather than abandon the fight, the publishers pivoted to filing a separate, more expansive lawsuit. This new filing also names Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and co-founder Benjamin Mann as individual defendants, signaling a more aggressive legal strategy.

“Built on Piracy,” Plaintiffs Charge

The lawsuit pulls no punches in its allegations. “While Anthropic misleadingly claims to be an AI ‘safety and research’ company, its record of illegal torrenting of copyrighted works makes clear that its multibillion-dollar business empire has in fact been built on piracy,” the complaint states.

The plaintiffs argue that Anthropic’s actions go beyond mere copyright infringement, accusing the company of systematic piracy to fuel its rapid growth. They contend that the AI firm’s business model relies on the unauthorized use of creative works, undermining the livelihoods of artists and creators.

Legal Precedent and Ongoing Debate

The Bartz case set an important precedent when Judge William Alsup ruled that while it is legal for AI companies to train models on copyrighted content under certain circumstances, it is not legal to acquire that content via piracy. This distinction could prove pivotal in the music publishers’ case against Anthropic.

The lawsuit comes amid a broader reckoning in the tech industry over the ethics and legality of using copyrighted material to train AI models. Companies like OpenAI, Google, and Meta have all faced similar accusations, though Anthropic’s case is notable for the sheer scale of the alleged infringement.

Anthropic’s Silence

Anthropic did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment on the lawsuit. The company has previously defended its training practices, arguing that its use of publicly available data falls under fair use doctrine. However, the piracy allegations could complicate that defense.

What’s at Stake

Beyond the potential financial damages, the case could have far-reaching implications for the AI industry. A ruling against Anthropic could force AI companies to overhaul their data acquisition practices, potentially slowing the pace of innovation. Conversely, a victory for Anthropic could embolden other AI firms to push the boundaries of fair use.

For the music industry, the lawsuit represents a high-stakes effort to protect the value of creative works in the age of AI. With streaming revenues plateauing and live events disrupted by the pandemic, many artists and publishers are looking to new revenue streams—and they’re wary of AI companies profiting from their work without compensation.

Looking Ahead

As the case unfolds, all eyes will be on how the court interprets the fine line between fair use and piracy in the context of AI training. The outcome could shape the future of the AI industry and the rights of creators for years to come.

Tags: Anthropic, AI, copyright, music, piracy, lawsuit, Concord Music Group, Universal Music Group, Claude, AI training, fair use, tech industry, legal battle, Dario Amodei, Benjamin Mann, $3 billion lawsuit, AI ethics, creative rights, data acquisition, streaming, artists, publishers, court ruling, precedent, innovation, revenue, pandemic, streaming revenues, live events, new revenue streams, compensation, creative works, AI models, OpenAI, Google, Meta, fair use doctrine, publicly available data, data practices, tech companies, ethical considerations, legal challenges, discovery phase, settlement, damages, copyright infringement, torrenting, business model, livelihoods, artists and creators, legal strategy, individual defendants, music publishers, sheet music, lyrics, musical compositions, training data, AI powerhouse, industry giants, blockbuster legal assault, bombshell announcement, high-powered legal team, landmark case, authors, books, copyrighted works, $13 billion Series F funding round, $183 billion valuation, separate lawsuit, piracy allegations, amendment, court denial, October ruling, investigation, pivot, expanded claims, legal assault, music industry, creative rights, AI ethics, tech industry, legal precedent, fair use, piracy, data acquisition, AI training, copyright infringement, lawsuit, Anthropic, Claude, Concord Music Group, Universal Music Group, Dario Amodei, Benjamin Mann, $3 billion, $1.5 billion settlement, $183 billion valuation, $13 billion Series F, AI models, copyrighted works, sheet music, lyrics, musical compositions, torrenting, business model, creators, artists, livelihoods, legal battle, court ruling, precedent, innovation, revenue, streaming, pandemic, live events, new revenue streams, compensation, creative works, AI ethics, tech companies, ethical considerations, legal challenges, discovery phase, settlement, damages, copyright infringement, torrenting, business model, livelihoods, artists and creators, legal strategy, individual defendants, music publishers, sheet music, lyrics, musical compositions, training data, AI powerhouse, industry giants, blockbuster legal assault, bombshell announcement, high-powered legal team, landmark case, authors, books, copyrighted works, $13 billion Series F funding round, $183 billion valuation, separate lawsuit, piracy allegations, amendment, court denial, October ruling, investigation, pivot, expanded claims.

,