Metallica v. Napster, Inc.

Last updated
Metallica v. Napster, Inc.
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameMetallica v. Napster, Inc.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Marilyn Hall Patel

Metallica, et al. v. Napster, Inc. was a 2000 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case [1] that focused on copyright infringement, racketeering, and unlawful use of digital audio interface devices. Metallica vs. Napster, Inc. was the first case that involved an artist suing a peer-to-peer file sharing ("P2P") software company.[ citation needed ]

Contents

Background

Metallica is an American heavy metal band. The band was formed in 1981 in Los Angeles by vocalist/guitarist James Hetfield and drummer Lars Ulrich, and has been based in San Francisco for most of its career. Napster was a pioneering peer-to-peer file sharing Internet service, founded by Shawn Fanning, that emphasized sharing digitally encoded music as MP3 audio files. On April 13, 2000, Metallica filed a lawsuit against the file sharing company Napster. Metallica alleged that Napster was guilty of copyright infringement and racketeering, as defined by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. [2] The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This case was filed soon after another case was filed against Napster, the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. , which included 18 large record companies. [3] Metallica v. Napster, Inc. was the first highly publicized instance of an artist suing a P2P software company,[ citation needed ] and encouraged several other high-profile artists to sue Napster. [4]

Case

On July 11, 2000, Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich read testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee accusing Napster of copyright infringement. He explained that, that year, Metallica discovered that a demo of "I Disappear", a song set to be released with the Mission: Impossible II soundtrack, was being played on the radio. Metallica traced the leak to a file on Napster's peer-to-peer file-sharing network, where the band's entire catalogue was available for free download. [5] Metallica argued that Napster was enabling users to exchange copyrighted MP3 files. [6]

Metallica sought a minimum of $10 million in damages, at a rate of $100,000 per illegally downloaded song. [7] Metallica hired NetPD, an online consulting firm, to monitor the Napster service. NetPD produced a list of 335,435 Napster users who were allegedly sharing the band's songs online in violation of copyright laws; the 60,000-page list was delivered to Napster's office. [8] Metallica demanded that their songs be banned from file sharing, and that the users responsible for sharing their music be banned from the service. This led to over 300,000 users being banned from Napster, [9] although software was released that simply altered the Windows registry and allowed users to rejoin the service under a different name. The lawsuit also named several universities to be held accountable for allowing students to illegally download music on their networks, including the University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University. [10]

Outcome

In March 2001, the federal district court judge ruling over the case, Marilyn Hall Patel, issued a preliminary injunction in Metallica's favor pending the case's resolution. The injunction, which was substantially identical to one ordered in the A&M case, ordered Napster to place a filter on the program within 72 hours or be shut down. [11] Napster was forced to search its system and remove all copyrighted songs by Metallica. [12]

Other artists including Dr. Dre, a number of record companies, and the RIAA subsequently filed their own lawsuits which led to the termination of an additional 230,142 Napster accounts. [13] On July 12, 2001, Napster reached a settlement with Metallica and Dr. Dre after Bertelsmann AG BMG became interested in purchasing the rights to Napster for $94 million. The settlement required that Napster block music being shared from any artist that did not want their music to be shared. [14] This $94 million deal was blocked when Judge Peter Walsh ruled that the deal was tainted because Napster Chief Executive Officer Konrad Hilbers, a former Bertelsmann executive, had one foot in the Napster camp and one foot in the Bertelsmann camp. Napster was forced to file for Chapter 7 and liquidate its assets. [15]

Napster

The Napster program was originally a way for nineteen-year-old Shawn Fanning and his friends throughout the country to trade music in the MP3 format. Fanning and his friends decided to try to increase the number of files available and involve more people by creating a way for users to browse each other's files and to talk to each other. Napster went live in September 1999 and gained instant popularity. Napster's number of registered users was doubling every 5–6 weeks. In February 2001, Napster had roughly 80 million monthly users compared to Yahoo's 54 million monthly users. At its peak Napster facilitated nearly 2 billion file transfers per month and had an estimated net-worth of between 60 and 80 million dollars.

Fanning designed Napster as a searching and indexing program, meaning that files were not downloaded from Napster's servers but rather from a peer's computer. Users had to download a program, MusicShare, which would allow them to interact with Napster's servers. When users would log onto their Napster account, MusicShare would read the names of the MP3 files that the user had made public and would then communicate with Napster's servers so a complete list of all public files from all users could be compiled. Once logged into Napster a user would simply enter the name of the file they wanted to download and hit the search button to view a list of all the sources that contained the desired file. The user would then click the download button and the Napster server would communicate with the host's MusicShare browser to facilitate a connection and begin the download. This method of file sharing is referred to as peer-to-peer file sharing. [16]

P2P

Peer-to-peer is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or workloads between cooperating users. By joining one of these peer-to-peer network of nodes, the users allow a portion of their resources, such as processing power, disk storage or network bandwidth, to be directly available to other network participants. By utilizing this type of application structure, any MP3s, videos, or other files located on a users' computer are instantly made available to other Napster users for download. This is one of the major reasons Napster was so popular, it was easy to use and had a large number of files for download. Being one of the first of its kind, Napster made a significant contribution to the popularity of the peer-to-peer application structure. Many other software applications followed in Napster's footsteps by using this model including BearShare, Gnutella, Freenet, and today's major application of torrents including BitTorrent.

Issues surrounding P2P software

One of the largest issues with P2P software is the public assumption that users use these programs strictly for illegal sharing of copyrighted files. There are many other usages associated with P2P software. Some file sharing clients have been known to release confidential personal information, [17] and come bundled with spyware, malware, or other viruses that could enable unsecure, unsigned codes to allow remote access to any file on the user's computer. [18] [19]

Artists using P2P for promotion

The relationship between music artists and P2P file sharing software is not always about infringing music. In a 2000 study, it was shown that users of Napster who download free music actually spent more money on music. [20] In another study, it was proposed that by downloading free music, users are able to sample new music and find new tastes, which may lead to increased sales. [21] Several artists also supported Napster and used the service for promotion. In 2000, Limp Bizkit signed a $1.8 million deal to promote 23 free concerts. [22]

Implications

There were many people[ who? ] that were worried that the ruling in the Metallica v. Napster, Inc. case would affect the future of P2P file sharing and other industries that stemmed from the growing popularity of MP3 music. [23] In RIAA v. Diamond , the Recording Industry Association of America sued Diamond Multimedia Systems for producing a portable MP3 player called the Rio. The RIAA claimed that the Rio did not comply with the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), and thus its production should be halted. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Rio was not covered by the AHRA and that it was designed simply to enable users to easily listen to MP3 files that were already stored on their personal computers or on other personal storage devices. In the earlier case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , it was ruled that Sony's VCR, which allowed users to record live television onto cassette tapes to be viewed at a later time, did not violate copyright law. [24]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Napster</span> On-line peer-to-peer file sharing software

Napster was a peer-to-peer file sharing application that originally launched on June 1, 1999 with an emphasis on digital audio file distribution. Audio songs shared on the service were typically encoded in the MP3 format. It was founded by Shawn Fanning, Sean Parker, and Hugo Sáez Contreras. As the software became popular, the company ran into legal difficulties over copyright infringement. It ceased operations in 2001 after losing a wave of lawsuits and filed for bankruptcy in June 2002.

Uploading refers to transmitting data from one computer system to another through means of a network. Common methods of uploading include: uploading via web browsers, FTP clients], and terminals (SCP/SFTP). Uploading can be used in the context of clients that send files to a central server. While uploading can also be defined in the context of sending files between distributed clients, such as with a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing protocol like BitTorrent, the term file sharing is more often used in this case. Moving files within a computer system, as opposed to over a network, is called file copying.

eDonkey2000

eDonkey2000 was (is) a peer-to-peer file sharing application developed by US company MetaMachine, using the Multisource File Transfer Protocol. It supported both the eDonkey2000 network and the Overnet network.

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

In computer networks, download means to receive data from a remote system, typically a server such as a web server, an FTP server, an email server, or other similar systems. This contrasts with uploading, where data is sent to a remote server. A download is a file offered for downloading or that has been downloaded, or the process of receiving such a file.

Madster was a peer-to-peer file sharing service. It was released in Napster's wake in August 2000 shut down in December 2002 as a result of a lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

This is a timeline of events in the history of networked file sharing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peer-to-peer file sharing</span> Data distribution using P2P networking technology.

Peer-to-peer file sharing is the distribution and sharing of digital media using peer-to-peer (P2P) networking technology. P2P file sharing allows users to access media files such as books, music, movies, and games using a P2P software program that searches for other connected computers on a P2P network to locate the desired content. The nodes (peers) of such networks are end-user computers and distribution servers.

The inducement rule is a test a United States court can use to determine whether liability for copyright infringement committed by third parties could be assigned to the distributor of the device used to commit infringement.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright infringement</span> Usage of a copyrighted work without the authors permission

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, documents or electronic books. Common methods of storage, transmission and dispersion include removable media, centralized servers on computer networks, Internet-based hyperlinked documents, and the use of distributed peer-to-peer networking.

Scour Inc. was a multimedia Internet search engine, and provided Scour Exchange, an early peer-to-peer file exchange service.

In the first decade of the 21st century, the rise of digital media on the internet and computers as a central and primary means to record, distribute, store, and play music caused widespread economic changes in the music industry. The rise of digital media with high-speed internet access fundamentally changed the relationships between artists, record companies, promoters, retail music stores, the technology industry, and consumers. The rise of digital music consumption options contributed to several fundamental changes in consumption. One significant change in the music industry was the remarkable decline of conventional album sales on CD and vinyl. With the à la carte sales models increasing in popularity, consumers no longer downloaded entire albums but rather chose single songs.

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (2000), was the district court case which preceded the landmark intellectual property case of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001). The case was heard by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Napster appealed this case to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Music piracy</span> Copying and distribution of music without the consent of creators or copyright holders

Music piracy is the copying and distributing of recordings of a piece of music for which the rights owners did not give consent. In the contemporary legal environment, it is a form of copyright infringement, which may be either a civil wrong or a crime depending on jurisdiction. The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw much controversy over the ethics of redistributing media content, how much production and distribution companies in the media were losing, and the very scope of what ought to be considered piracy – and cases involving the piracy of music were among the most frequently discussed in the debate.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

References

  1. ↑ "Metallica v. Napster, Inc" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 July 2003. Retrieved 5 June 2011.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ↑ Jones, Christopher (13 April 2000). "Metallica Rips Napster". Wired. Archived from the original on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 27 April 2011.
  3. ↑ "A & M RECORDS, INC. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 - Dist. Court, ND". 2000. Retrieved 28 April 2011.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ↑ Borland, John. "Napster boots Dr. Dre fans from service" . Retrieved 27 April 2011.
  5. ↑ "Lars Ulrich Testimony". Archived from the original on November 29, 2007. Retrieved 23 April 2011.
  6. ↑ Marshall L. (2002, April 5) Metallica and Morality: The Rhetorical Battleground of the Napster Wars. Pg. 8
  7. ↑ Borland, John. "Napster, universities sued by Metallica - CNET News". News.cnet.com. Retrieved 2011-04-23.
  8. ↑ Borland, John. "Metallica fingers 335,435 Napster users" . Retrieved 23 April 2011.
  9. ↑ "Napster timeline - PC World Business". Pcworld.idg.com.au. 2001-04-03. Retrieved 2011-04-23.
  10. ↑ "Metallica Sues Napster, 3 Universities". Billboard . Retrieved 25 April 2011.
  11. ↑ Sakuma, Paul (6 March 2001). "The End of the Line for Royalties?". Time. Archived from the original on March 7, 2001. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
  12. ↑ "Metallica vs. Napster, Inc Case". FindLaw.com: 2. 2000. Retrieved 25 April 2011.
  13. ↑ Borland, John. "Napster Boots Dr. Dre Fans From Service" . Retrieved 28 April 2011.
  14. ↑ "Napster settles suits". CNN. 12 July 2001. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
  15. ↑ Evangelista, Benny (7 January 2011). "Napster runs out of lives -- judge rules against sale". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
  16. ↑ Green, Matthew (2002). "Napster Opens Pandora's Box: Examining How File-Sharing Services Threaten the Enforcement of Copyright on the Internet". Ohio State Law Journal. 63 (799).
  17. ↑ Vijayan, Jaikumar (17 May 2010). "P2P networks a treasure trove of leaked health care data, study finds" . Retrieved 27 April 2011.
  18. ↑ Johnson, Eric; Dan McGuire; Nicholas D. Willey (2008). "The Evolution of the Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Industry and the Security Risks for Users" (PDF). Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: 7. Retrieved 27 April 2011.
  19. ↑ Håvard, Vegge; Halvorsen Finn Michael; Nergård Rune Walsø; Jaatun Martin Gilje; Jensen Jostein (24–28 May 2009). "Where Only Fools Dare to Tread: An Empirical Study on the Prevalence of Zero-Day Malware" (PDF). Fourth International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection. Retrieved 27 April 2011.
  20. ↑ Hansen, Evan. "Study: Napster users buy more music" . Retrieved 28 April 2011.
  21. ↑ Peitz, Martin; Patrick Waelbroeck (2006). "Why the music industry may gain from free downloading — The role of sampling". International Journal of Industrial Organization: 908.
  22. ↑ "Embattled Napster Sponsors Bizkit Giveaway". CMJ New Music Report. 62 (665): 6. 8 May 2000. Retrieved 28 April 2011.
  23. ↑ Green, Matthew (2002). "Napster Opens Pandora's Box: Examining How File-Sharing Services Threaten the Enforcement of Copyright on the Internet". Ohio State Law Journal. 63 (799).
  24. ↑ Burgunder, Lee (June 2002). "Reflections On Napster: The Ninth Circuit Takes A Walk On The Wild Side". American Business Law Journal. 39 (4): 683–710. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1714.2002.tb00308.x.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.