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*

Issue of the Case

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

The issues of this case are quite simple. Free distribution of copyrighted material. The music industry brought charges against Napster, Inc. alleging copyright infringement. They had also found that, "the “sharing” of the copyrighted files was not fair use and was not within other exemptions from and limitations on copyright infringements created by the Audio Home Recording Act or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." In recourse, Napster argued that they were protected and not held liable due to the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Milennium Copyright Act. The music industry was realy trying to attack the user's themselves but settled for the "Master" source. The issues included in this case at this time have impacted the music industry severely. "Music piracy has reached epic proportions and costs the music industry and estimated $300 million per year." And with that amount... one wouldn't think they would be able to recover all that well in the coming future. It's not that difficult to understand that the real matter at hand is the concern regarding the "Boundries between sharing and theft, personal use and the unauthorized worldwide distribution of copyrighted music and sound recordings." Protection of copyrighted material is key in this case and is the overwhelming issue. But there is a unique gift when it comes to "sharing" music... and that is the ability to find exactly what you're looking for (at the time) without a hassle. For example, one can find "Sesame Street‘s "Rubby Ducky" song in German." And who doesn't want that!?

SPAM

... combined with some eggs and rice, you're in for a delicious meal. But digitally, SPAM is a massive annoyance in your inbox. I’ve experienced it, you’ve experienced it, and any AOL 2.0 user has experienced it. Spam is no laughing matter, unless you on the receiving end of the lucrative scheme and don’t get caught.

Well, of course some people in our digital world are naive enough to click through the emails, hone in on one link and prepare to submit their credit card information for some animal growth hormones to make their testes the size of bowling balls! Sadly, those that have funded these off-shore research facilities have realized that they’ve been had when they bail on eHarmony dates because their pills haven’t come in and they’re left alone, depressed, and contemplating ordering some of the happy pill ads that keep filling up their inbox.

There’s a lot of SPAM in this world and there have been major combatants against it. SpamHaus, which is a network of Australia, New Zealand, India, China and the United States banding together to assist in our “War on Spammer.” Their most recent take down is a head Al-Qu… I mean a Big Wig of SPAM dealing prowess. I’m glad that they were able to take down this major king pin and thwarting his reign of 10 billion SPAM emails a day! I can definitely sleep well a night as my blackberry holds back the Gmail updates until noon…


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/12/22/1229794316883.html

Supreme Court Case of Interest

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), was an important intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the defendant, Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiff record company's copyrights.

I've selected this Supreme Court Case as it has some direct correlation with my lifestyle. I'm not saying that I download pirated music, but I know somebody that has. Piracy is an ever growing practice amongst the unemployed youth of America. And why not... They're cooped up in their parent-paid homes using their parent-paid internet connection on most likely their parent-paid computers downloading music, which to them is absolutely free. It's hard to imagine the era of Napster that I was raised in with some kind of payment policy in order to download the music. At that time, I was that parent-paid youngster... but now days I have more to worry about then music.

Through the following weeks and posts, we'll dig a little deeper in to what made this court case really pop.


http://www.dml.indiana.edu/pdf/AnalysisOfNapsterDecision.pdf

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm

3's About Me.

Three Names I have been called: "dee-ray" "duhveed" "dig"

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to): Designing Headstones for Palm Mortuary's Memorial Design Center. Making coffee for the almighty Starbucks Coffee Company. Information and Multimedia Technician for UNLV's Office of Information Technology.

Three Places I Have Lived: Guam. East Las Vegas. West Las Vegas.

Three TV Shows that I watch: It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Rescue me. The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack.

Three places I have been: California. Washington D.C. Hawaii.

People that e-mail me regularly: Jillian Minimi. Danny Kam. Craigslist Creepers.

Three of my favorite foods: Pizza. Pasta. Sushi.

Three cars I have driven: 1987 Mazda RX-7. 1997 Acura Integra. 2006 Volkswagen GTI.

Three things I am looking forward to: An enjoyable Career. Traveling. Family.

Greed is Good.

Of course it is. I would only say this if I were actually employed in the “high yielding bank bonding stock marketing investment banking money laundering fraud” market that we hold so dear to our economic heart. Yes, greed is good. Greed is what’s held above our heads in hopes of attaining. Greed is what allows us to be persistent in the lower-middle class that we strive to bust out of. Greed is what I feel, keeps me on my toes for the next freelance, under the table, drug smuggling job that I can get my hands on. If it wasn’t for greed, most of us wouldn’t be where we are today. Why shouldn’t we strive to be wealthy individuals? If we didn’t strive for the best, we just wouldn’t be living in America. The “American Dream,” is what everyone in the world wants a taste of. It’s bittersweet flavor, ignorantly crusted with selfishness, seared to perfection atop a bed of money bags and au jus… I can’t forget the slab of A1 on this medium rare delicacy that we all know and love, but I think that would taint it’s open pastured, organic flavor. We’ve had many intelligent conversations on the subject of life, greed, money, sex, and rock’n’roll. For example, Gecko’s "Greed is Good" speech is so blatantly honest, that it’s a sincere explanation of what goes down on the street. (And by street, I mean Wall St.) Also, we can’t forget everyone’s favorite Cuban immigrant… Tony Montana who states, “I want what’s comin’ to me Chico… The world.” Now, show me where I can get my bonus so that I can be loyal to you until next year.

In response to the Smash-Me: Bernie Madoff toy (hammer included)… I would like to see something similar but with interchangeable parts, such as limbs, heads and artificial breasts. Let’s get some celebratory smashes on Britney spears, Lindsay Lohan, Perez Hilton and others in the reality television realm that VH1 and MTV have forced me to watch vicariously through my significant other. Damn their subliminal messages in vanity, greed and 15 minutes of fame.

What My Classmates Think Of The Legal System.

Ah, the joys of peer opinions. What classmates think about the law is just as important as what I think. Obviously, they have just as big an effect on it as I do… and as a union of opinions, hopefully striving towards the same goals, we can unanimously reign supreme… This is what a few had to say about it:
In regards to the ludicracy of some of our laws, Richmond Pham had this to say,

“Maybe that is why they say that studying law at a prestigious school like Harvard will most likely make you kill yourself before you can graduate.” (http://ailvbus111.blogspot.com/)

I completely agree. It’s sad to see a feeble minded individual take their own life, but it’s even worse to see a Harvard Collegiate take their life all because of their Business Law teacher. Especially if that could have been my spot in their lottery…
As I read through some of these blogs a certain pink tattered layout stands out. Stacia Woody writes,

“The legal Officials need more training on how to carry out the law. There are always complaints.” (http://enviousdesigns.blogspot.com/)

If I got a nickel for every complaint made towards how enforcers of the law, enforce the laws… I’d be richer then Bill Gates, but a few billion short of Ingvar Kamprad (founder of Ikea). I agree with the her statement that denounces the ways our officials enforce the law. But, America has no way of staying ahead of the curve. In this country we have a freedom of speech and some people take advantage of that… Sadly, they complain about every little thing that goes wrong, as well as complaining about the things that go right! It’s a shame, but we live with it.
In closing, a wise man once said,

“For the most part the idea of the legal system is simple: follow the law and the law will not follow you.” (Andrew Veliz, http://sincidkid24.blogspot.com/)

I hope I don’t have any law officials watching me right now. Their hot and heavy breathing over a tapped phone just gets eerie and begs me to start listing my number as a sex hotline. But I do agree with what Andrew is saying… Don’t become that person sending signal flares up in the air when you’re stealing bicycles in your neighborhood… keep it on the DL. Got it?

Used Cars - Crimes & Torts

Crimes
1. Assault- the guy accuses the kurt Russell things he might not have done
2. Battery- the guy in the bar slaps him and the guy fights him back
3. Fraud- Tampering with videotape
4. Illegal Gambling- betting on sports games
5. Bribery of a Public Official- while they were in the car
6. Bribery of the Attorney- other lawyer bribed others in the room
7. Obstruction of the Courtroom- disrupting the court, coming in late
8. Perjury- the girl lied under oath
9. Sexual harassment- the guy who sold the cars, grabbed the girls boob
10. Speeding- driving over the speed limit
11. Reckless driving-
12. Drug Dealing- on with the reefer
13. Unlicensed drivers
14. Driving on the the wrong side of the road
15. No registration/insurance
16. Illegal weapons/
17. Attempted assault with a deadly weapon
18. Battery with the chain when he was whipping him
19. Kidnapping/hostage- while that old man jumped on the car
20. Trespassing on private property- driving offroad
21. Driving on the shoulder
22. Cutting the car off the tow truck
23. Crossing a railroad crossing with a train in motion
24. Knowingly falsifying information to make a sale
25. Didn’t yield to the intersection while driving on the way to the lot
26. Speeding in a construction zone
27. Knowingly crashed through a police barricade
28. Damaging to federal (police) property
29. Leaving the scene of the crime
30. Jaywalking- in the end the guy who hates driving red cars

Torts
1. Damaging private property- in the bar, the guy threw the chair at the bar mirror
2. Damaging Private property- taking the girls umbrella, ruining their dinner
3. Cutting the car off the tow truck
4. Slander- accusing the judge of being crooked/ taking bribes
5. Violating the people’s dinner at the bar
6. Violation of personal property- tampering with tow truck
7. Violation of private property- letting the car loose
8. Damaging the car lot- kids crashing through warehouses

Group
David Resto
Andrew Veliz
Richmond Pham
Stacia Woody

What I Think Of The Legal System.

Promises… Promises. Our legal system is based on the basis of one keeping a promise. These promises are meant to be kept upon becoming a citizen, whether from the womb or other tricky situations involving comprehension of words to our National Anthem in a crowded room of accents. The conditions that one promises to are all the same, “Do you promise to follow the laws set forth by the millions of branches of governments, agencies, bald eagles, bourgeoisie, dinosaurs and green peace groups of the United States of America?” … “Yeah, Sure! I promise.”

“It should be noted that the mere promise to act is usually deemed valid consideration. Whether or not the promise is actually carried out is another matter…” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, Pg. 124-125)

In all actuality, our legal system is built on antiqued knowledge and amended through the years to keep current for our ever changing world and nation. It is enticing to see trials getting hot and heavy though, especially when they follow the shirt tails of acclaimed musicians in child molestation charges (too soon?). But then again, watching Average Joe’s getting sentenced in our infamous court of law or even Judge Judy is very unsettling, especially if Paris Hilton was just acquitted of the same charges last week. This just goes to show that if you have some sort of celebretorial-cloat you should be able to win over the preserved cavities of big wigs representing our legal system, with or without showing some skin.

It’s a joke. But this is the country that we choose to live in and this is the country that allows us the freedom to choose. I’m not saying that I’m choosing to take my under-age girlfriend across state lines, because obviously that’s not what they want me to choose… but rather the subtle choice between Starbucks or Dunkin, oh the joys of a Iced, Venti, Soy, Light Ice, Chai Tea Latte with two added shots of espresso, whipped cream and cinnamon on top. (No, I don’t really drink that, it’s the “choice” that counts.)

Myspace Hoax.

It’s a crazy “internet” that we all live in. I’m sure that a lot of us start our day by loading our tabs with multiple social networking sites, browse for updates, reply to crushes, and snoop over an unsuspecting past significant other. But in all this, how much of what we do online is honest browsing? Or should I say, how much of what everyone else online is doing is completely honest and moral?

The Myspace Hoax of November 2007 involves a young girl, a pair of vicious enemies, and a fictitious flirt. A boy seemed to have appeared by Immaculate Conception over the wired streets of Silicon Valley. This boy tended to the emotional needs of a young girl, Megan Meier, who was sought out by a rivaling peer and her mother, Lori Drew. The Drew pairing created this boy, Joshua Evans, to become romantically involved with young Meier, so that they could attack her previous emotional struggles with ADD and Depression. The two immoral saps, sustained the romance on long enough when suddenly “breaking up” with Meier…thus, leading Meier, to her suicide.

I find this to be a very disturbing and immoral act. Drew, whose daughter was Meier’s peer, should have known better then to act on young, teenage angst. Not only did she mingle with this imbalance of hormones, but she pushed it to the point where a young girl had no place else to turn. Because of Drew, a young girl is dead. Sadly, she is not being charged with Meier’s suicide, but rather to the computer fraud charges brought forth against MySpace’s User Terms and Agreements (who reads that stuff anyway?)... She’ll luckily only be spending three years in prison, probation and up to $5,000 fine. Good for her. Hopefully somebody doesn’t decorate a gun with flowers, shoot Drew in the face and only risk getting sued by the artificial flower company for not using silk flowers, instead of plastic.

What I Think About Lawyers.

Lawyers. There’s a lot that most people may say about lawyers, some good, some bad. Honestly… I think lawyers are a stereotyped group of wonderful people. I have a lot of love for these folks that risk their moral ethics every day to make a few dollars. They are the constitutional whores of America. I do agree that some of them out there do it all for the good. But in EVERY instance, case, trial, shindig, carnival, circus… whatever you want to call it that goes down in the court room, there is a lawyer defending the “good guy” and a lawyer defending the “bad guy.” Obviously one of them is guilty, but by the cunning ways of a certain suave lawyer… somebody is proven innocent. Ah, the joys of our judicial system! The laws of society, the ethics of our people, and the protection of those that are wise enough to seek out the loop holes.

I find the sharade to be quite humorous. There’s a sadistic enjoyment in watching a slithering lawyer work his magic on unsuspecting victims with feeble minds and weak morale. If one allows themselves to be manipulated at that caliber, then of course a lawyer will be able to do their job wonderfully. But then again, there are the lawyers that stand up for truth, justice, morals, ethics and all that jazz. Are these the people that one will hire to support them in a court room victory? Is this the lawyer that will go down into the trenches of the judicial system and combat your enemies? They probably are… but think about who is on the opposing end. Do you think they have the money to be spent on an unethical, undermining, bottom feeder that will do the pretty much anything to attain their 40%.