Dissent: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc

At an absolute minimum, the Napster decision is a firm reminder that copyright law clearly applies to sound recordings, that courts will look critically at large-scale services that copy and distribute works, and that the applicable law is multi- layered and subject to potentially complex definitions and interpretations. The Napster decision demands a close look at the copyright implications of the digital library, but itssuperficial legal analysis offers little insight for better understanding the law.

In the end, the court ruling is minimalistic but it’s all so “political” and controlled by the leaders of the court systems and not to mention the ties that some officials may have with the music industry. It’s hard living in this sad aftermath, but somewhat funny to see how hard the industry fought to keep their music off the net if they didn’t get a cut…

Argument: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc

My argument is simple. Allowing users to download, sample, listen, enjoy and share music that they find directly affects a musical artists fan base. It’s simple to share music that you can attain at the click of a mouse. Burn a mix of great songs for a friend, that friend will share it with another… and another.. it’ll spread like wild-fire. Music is inspiration that should have no limits or restrictions on who can be inspired. Napster allowed users to do just that… spread their inspirations and share them with one another. I feel that the rulings against Napster were not fair. I was personally affected by Napster restrictions of use. I had a library of hundreds of songs in 2000 and I enjoyed every minute of it. This library grew ten fold when I hear of the Napsters trial. I had hopes of actually buying the albums, thinking that it would save Napster. All of the music I owned then… I had the original albums to back them up. Sadly, the hard stuff is still hard to buy so we’re left with searching all over the net to get them. It’s funny to see how much work goes into a simple song download now days when it used to be so easy when Napster was in it’s prime. I’m against the decision. Napster’s means of sharing were completely just and true. I would probably never have found some of my favorite bands without Napster’s simple little, “Find It” button… Ah, the glory days.

Rule of Law: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc

“The district court correctly recognized that a preliminary injunction against Napster's participation in copyright infringement is not only warranted but required. We believe, however, that the scope of the injunction needs modification in light of our opinion. Specifically, we reiterate that contributory liability may potentially be imposed only to the extent that Napster: (1) receives reasonable knowledge of specific infringing files with copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings; (2) knows or should know that such files are available on the Napster system; and (3) fails to act to prevent viral distribution of the works.
“Conversely, Napster may be vicariously liable when it fails to affirmatively use its ability to patrol its system and preclude access to potentially infringing files listed in its search index. Napster has both the ability to use its search function to identify infringing musical recordings and the right to bar participation of users who engage in the transmission of infringing files. The preliminary injunction which we stayed is overbroad because it places on Napster the entire burden of ensuring that no "copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing" of plaintiffs' works occur on the system. As stated, we place the burden on plaintiffs to provide notice to Napster of copyrighted works and files containing such works available on the Napster system before Napster has the duty to disable access to the offending content. Napster, however, also bears the burden of policing the system within the limits of the system. Here, we recognize that this is not an exact science in that the files are user named. In crafting the injunction on remand, the district court should recognize that Napster's system does not currently appear to allow Napster access to users' MP3 files.”
Motion denied because the allegedly infringing material did not pass through defendant's server to its users, but rather from one user to another; therefore, defendant did not meet the requirements of the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The previous quotes state the Rules of law and reasoning behind the courts final ruling. The main precedent is established as Napster’s direct accusation of infringement is null and is passed down to its users. Although Napster was not found “guilty,” they still need to be the ones to take full force in disabling their users from transferring copyrighted material.

Reasoning Of The Court: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc

During the hearings, the courts found Napster to be the epicenter of copyright infringement. Holding it high on a pedestal as the leading trafficker of music, Napster was forced to abandon ship… or should we say put their Users on time-out. The ways of thinking in this instance were mostly of the catastrophic effect that Napster had on the music industry in general. All of the music that people pay for when walking into a record store were being easily downloaded, copied, burned, distributed for absolutely free at the click of a mouse. It’s obvious why the court would find Napster a substantial culprit to the downfall of the music industry, but the real battle here is pinning it to Napster itself. Fail. Napster itself could not be accused of the damages being done to the music industry or be held liable to copyright infringement... All of their users had checked the agreement box prior to installation of the Napster Peer2Peer sharing program and unknowingly relinquished all accusations towards Napster and put it all on themselves and their peers. It wasn’t Napster’s fault at all… http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/AMRecords.html “>“This court has determined above that Napster does not meet the requirements of subsection 512(a) because it does not [*30] transmit, route, or provide connections for allegedly infringing material through its system.” It was the users who were infringing, but not necessarily making a profit on it so the real trial and questions should be put forth on them… Which is still an ongoing dilemma and ever growing problem, but look at what we have now… iTunes at $0.99 a song… I guess that beats a jail sentence for copyright infringement, I’m sure users record companies are happy about this.

Decision: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

In the stated supreme court case, Napster was dropped of the charges claiming of the infringement towards the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Napster also does not relate directly to any form of financial obligation or liability to trade that is going on. “Even if there is direct copyright infringement, the elements of contributory copyright infringement & vicarious liability have not been shown.”In fact making some sort of profit for the items being traded would constitute infringement. Napster, Inc., did not make any. Napster was not in direct control of the trading going on between its users, thus the charges were dropped on Napster and focus was brought forth to Napster’s Users. “Napster users are not direct copyright infringers, because they are either covered by the immunity granted by the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) and/or their use is a fair use.” Despite the dropped charges, Napster was forced to stop their services to their users, concluded by Chief Judge, Marilyn Hall Patel, "For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against Napster, Inc. Defendant is hereby preliminarily ENJOINED from engaging in, or facilitating others in copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing plaintiffs' copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings, protected by either federal or state law, without express permission of the rights owner."

What I Think About The Supreme Court

I'll take two crunchy tacos and a burrito supreme. I would assume that there still is a need for the supreme court, but honestly... There's so much that needs to be rethought, revisited and redecided when it comes to the modern day rulings that are based on outdated laws.

The way I see it, the supreme court should monitor the changes in our nation's state of mind. The changes in thinking and the over all knowledge of our nation has changed and since the beginning of our nations constitution. It'd be best for the supreme court to take that in mind when dealing with the most extreme cases.

Don't get me wrong, the supreme court does what it can do to the best of its ability. All it needs is a little makeover.

Illicit.

That lil Gucci hand bag would go perfectly with my Dior shades and Jimmy Chu pumps. Except that when I purchased all of these items I was funding terrorism, drug and human trafficking, and overthrew a Peruvian government... all for the sake of fashion. In my opinion, the whole "Illicit Trade" situation is a bit far fetched. It's hard to connect the dots on if my purchase of this item really affects those evil plots of terroism... but then again, I'm not one that actually goes out of my way to purchase that kind of crap. Name brands, of course. I'm one to appreciate what a high end boutique has to offer, but to see the same style replicated and sold cheaper at a kiosk a few yards down the walk way... I do see how one feeble minded individual could get tempted. The lack of will-power allows for terrorism to be funded. Save your money, buy legitimate goods. Don't waste what you have earned on crap that was produced to replicate... buy the original. Ah. A touchy subject... yes... sadly, one that a lot of the females in my family support. "Oh look at my new Louis Vutton!" "Check out my Gucci shades!" Yada, yada yada. Honestly ladies... It's the fake SHIT. I have nothing to be impressed with. Now, take a look at the quality of my Persol Sunglasses, you know... they're hand made in Italy, unlike your Chinese knock offs that support Human trafficking... *insert childish na-na-na-na-na-naaaah here*