Spotify and Record Labels Shut Down Data Archive in Copyright Dispute
Table of Contents
A legal battle initiated by Spotify and several major record labels led to the shutdown of multiple domains belonging to Anna’s Archive earlier this year. Newly unsealed court documents from a U.S. federal court, as reported by Torrentfreak, reveal the details behind the takedown.
A meta description for search engines: Discover how a lawsuit from Spotify, Universal, Sony, and Warner resulted in the shutdown of Anna’s Archive, a site accused of copyright infringement.
Anna’s Archive first announced in December 2025 that it had created a comprehensive backup of Spotify’s catalog and intended to release the amassed data publicly. The lawsuit alleges that the archive bypassed Spotify’s Digital Rights Management (DRM) protections and systematically extracted both metadata and audio files associated with hundreds of millions of songs.
Legal Action and Domain Seizure
On December 29, 2025, Spotify joined forces with industry giants Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group to file a sealed lawsuit in New York. A court order swiftly followed, targeting not only Anna’s Archive directly, but also key internet infrastructure providers. This included domain registrars, web hosting services, and other intermediaries crucial to the archive’s operation.
The impact of the order was immediate. In early January, Anna’s Archive’s .org and .se domains were rendered inaccessible. Notably, the Swedish Internet Foundation was among those served with the court order, highlighting the international scope of the legal effort.
Implications for Data Archiving and Copyright
The case raises significant questions about the boundaries of data archiving and copyright law in the digital age. Anna’s Archive positioned itself as a preservation effort, but the music industry viewed its actions as a clear violation of intellectual property rights. “The archive circumvented Spotify’s DRM and scraped metadata and audio files linked to hundreds of millions of songs,” according to the lawsuit.
The speed and breadth of the legal response – targeting infrastructure providers alongside the archive itself – demonstrate the willingness of rights holders to aggressively defend their content online. This approach could have a chilling effect on similar archiving projects, even those with legitimate preservation goals.
The outcome of this case will likely set a precedent for future disputes involving large-scale data collection and the circumvention of DRM technologies. It underscores the ongoing tension between open access to information and the protection of intellectual property in the streaming era.
