The controversy working process and arguments regarding the napster music infringement cases

Share via Email This article is over 18 years old A federal judge in San Francisco yesterday ordered Napster, the internet service that allows the trading of MP3 sound files by linking personal computers, to stop permitting the exchange of copyrighted music owned by major music labels.

They also claimed the content on Napster was open to fair use. Napster believed they had three fair use defenses.

Intellectual Property |

The first was sampling, meaning potential customers had a right to sample music before they bought it. This was turned down by the judge because the sample was full and permanent.

The second fair use defense was space shifting. This meant audio files on CD were shifted to mp3 format and were open for circulation on the Internet. The third defense succeeded.

It only gave Napster the right to distribute copyrighted material of artists who gave permission.

Napster - Wikipedia

Ruling The United States Court of Appeals ruled Napster could be held responsible for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Joel Tenenbaum Another separate case is sure to scare off some P2P users who think they are immune from the repercussions of copyright infringement. The doctoral student was sued for downloading and distributing 30 copyrighted songs.

There were more songs in his folder but the RIAA focused on 30 songs. Tenenbaum was just an average P2P user who regularly swapped copyrighted material since P2P networks became popular around Tenenbaum was represented by a Harvard University professor who took the case free of charge after hearing of the case on the news.

The RIAA recently announced they would stop suing P2P users because the defendant could rarely pay the court-ruled amount and the money spent on lawyers was far greater than the money coming in.Infringement can occur only if another person uses, makes, or sells the patented device or process without the permission of the person who has received the patent.

The controversy working process and arguments regarding the napster music infringement cases

When a patented device or process is infringed, the patent holder, or patentee, may recover in damages an amount equal to .

Napster functioned as a kind of “music matchmaking service—responsible for finding the links, but was not responsible for what happened after that [Napster] technology was to demonstrate what a fully enabled ‘celestial jukebox’ might be” (Lessig, , pp.

The controversy working process and arguments regarding the napster music infringement cases

–). Case Study 1: RIAA Sues Napster. The RIAA has filed suit against Napster, Inc., operators of the website, accusing Napster of violating federal and state laws through "contributory and vicarious copyright infringement."The RIAA's complaint describes the case as follows.

U.S. Copyright Office: Brief in A&M Records v. Napster The service operated between June and July At its peak the Napster service had about 80 million registered users.
Famous P2p Infringement Cases - Copyright | Jason Christopher Roberts Date posted: With fertility rates at an all time low, the business of treating infertility is booming.
Although largely governed by federal law, state law also governs some aspects of intellectual property. Intellectual property describes a wide variety of property created by musicians, authors, artists, and inventors.
Consistent with these statutory provisions, the United States participates as an amicus curiae to provide courts with the views of the federal government, including the Copyright Office and the Patent and Trademark Office, regarding significant copyright and other intellectual property issues. The Copyright Office plays a central role in the administration of the Act.
According to a report, 3 even the people who created the intellectual property might not really appreciate the ethical aspects of the issue because deep down they could be thrilled that someone else liked their work so much as to steal it. However, it can not be denied that all artists would prefer to be paid for their creations.

In December and January , plaintiffs Jerry Leiber et al. and Capitol Records et al., as well as other music industry players, sued Napster for copyright infringement. Leiber et al. and Capitol Records et al. (collectively “appellees”) are now appellees in this court.

The Audio Home Recording Act is Congress's response to a controversy between the music industry and the consumer electronics industry regarding the introduction of digital audio recording technology into the domestic consumer market. are engaged in copyright infringement and that Napster is liable for contributory infringement and .

In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., F.3d (), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a peer-to-peer file sharing service could indeed be held liable for contributory and vicarious infringement of copyright.