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."

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!?

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