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

Last updated

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameA&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
ArguedOctober 2 2000
DecidedFebruary 12 2001
Citation(s)239 F.3d 1004
Holding
Napster could be held liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, affirming the District Court holding.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mary M. Schroeder, Richard Paez, Robert Beezer
Case opinions
MajorityRobert Beezer
Laws applied
17 U.S.C. § 501, 17 U.S.C. §106

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th. Cir., 2001) was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed 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. [1] This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing. [2]

Contents

While A&M Records served as the lead plaintiff, Napster was sued by 18 different record companies, all of which were members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). [3] Additionally, songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller were included on the Circuit Court appeal, representing the interests of "all others similarly situated." [1]

Background

Napster was founded in 1999 by 18 year-old Shawn Fanning. [1] Napster provided a platform for users to download compressed digital music files, specifically MP3s, from other users' music libraries. Unlike many peer-to-peer services, however, Napster included a central server that indexed connected users and files available on their machines, creating a searchable list of music available across Napster's network. Napster's ease of use compared to other peer-to-peer services quickly made it a popular service for music enthusiasts to find and download digital song files for free. [1]

The legacy record industry immediately took action against what it believed to be unauthorized copying of its copyrighted musical works within the Napster service. The first suit was filed at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [4]

District Court opinion

The record companies alleged both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement by Napster, and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in order to stop the exchange of the plaintiffs' songs on the service immediately.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the preliminary injunction, on the grounds that the plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success. She issued an injunction which immediately prohibited Napster: "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." [4]

Napster appealed this ruling to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Circuit Court opinion

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ordered a stay of the District Court's injunction, pending resolution. This allowed Napster to continue its operations until the rendering of a judgment at the end of the hearings. [1] On the matter of direct copyright infringement, the Circuit Court agreed with the District Court's determination that Napster users were likely engaging in direct infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights. [1]

Fair use

The Circuit Court dedicated much more of its opinion to Napster's attempted application of the fair use defense. The Circuit Court agreed with the District Court's "general analysis of Napster system uses" as well as with its analysis of the three types of fair use alleged by Napster, which were "sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing; space shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists." [1]

The court first considered these four factors required for the fair use defense:

  1. Downloading an MP3 is not transformative, and even though Napster didn't directly benefit financially from users' downloads (it did not charge for the service), "repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works, even if the copies are not offered for sale" could be considered a commercial use that requires authorization from copyright holders.
  2. Creative works, such as the songs in question, are "closer to the core of intended copyright protection", thus favoring the plaintiffs.
  3. In some cases, wholesale copying of a work may be allowable, with time shifting as an example.
  4. Widespread wholesale transfer of plaintiffs' music negatively affected the market for CD sales and jeopardized the record industry's future in digital markets. [1]

Thus, the Circuit Court rejected Napster's argument that file sharing by its users qualified for the fair use defense. Napster's claims that it enabled legal sampling, space shifting, and permissive distribution (some artists had consented to the presence of their songs on the Napster service) were also rejected by the court. Furthermore, the court found that Napster could control the infringing behavior of the service's users, and therefore had a duty to do so. Therefore, Napster did not have a valid fair use defense. [1]

Contributory infringement

The District Court had ruled that the "law does not require knowledge of 'specific acts of infringement'" [1] and rejected Napster's assertion that, because it could not distinguish between infringing and non-infringing files, it did not have knowledge of copyright infringement by its users. The Ninth Circuit upheld this conclusion, holding that Napster had "knowledge, both actual and constructive, of direct infringement." [1]

The Ninth Circuit also held that Napster was not protected under Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , [5] in which the Supreme Court ruled that media copying technologies were acceptable if they were unlikely to cause widespread copyright infringement beyond the original user. Because of Napster's "actual, specific knowledge of direct infringement," and the unlikelihood of non-infringing uses of Napster, "[W]e are compelled to make a clear distinction between the architecture of the Napster system and Napster's conduct in relation to the operational capacity of the system." Thus, the Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' contributory infringement claim against Napster. [1]

Vicarious infringement

Addressing the vicarious infringement claim, the Circuit Court determined that Napster stood to benefit financially from the infringing activity, due to the network effects of potentially selling advertising space for a large population of users, and that Napster's ability to patrol and enforce infringing usage was limited by the design of the system itself. The system was not designed to read the contents of MP3s or check for copyright ownership or permissions. Because of Napster's failure to police within its means combined with the financial interest factor, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding of vicarious infringement. [1]

Other defenses

In its defense against the injunction, Napster also cited the Audio Home Recording Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 1001). [6] and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor clause (17 U.S.C. § 512), [7] claiming that Napster users only made allowable copies of files for their personal use, with no interest in wider distribution of unauthorized copies. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court's finding that downloading MP3 files is not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act because online file sharing could spread unauthorized copies much more quickly than older forms of analog tape trading. [1]

Napster also argued that the record companies waived their rights to copyright protection because they "hastened" the spread of MP3s on the Internet and had their own plans to get into the digital market. [2] The Ninth Circuit rejected Napster's claim that, by creating and providing digital files via the Internet, the plaintiffs had granted Napster an "implied license" to enable the copying of music files. [1] Finally, Napster argued that the plaintiffs were misusing copyright law to control online distribution, which Napster considered beyond the scope of the limited ownership rights provided by copyright. The court rejected this argument as well, finding that MP3s were the same works as those that appeared on CDs, just in a different format, thus the plaintiffs had the ownership right to control the distribution of digital music. [1]

Scope of the injunction

Napster contended that the original District Court injunction shutting down its operations violated the company's First Amendment rights because it was overbroad and restricted other user activities beyond copyright infringement. While the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument due to the lack of a fair use defense, it did order a stay of the original injunction and agreed that it was 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." [1]

Recognizing that Napster's system simply indexed files with imperfect file names and did not automatically verify copyright ownership, the Circuit Court found that it was the plaintiffs' burden to notify Napster of any infringing files on the system, which Napster would then remove. But the court also again noted that Napster must police the system within its means: "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." [1]

Outcome

To determine whether Napster should be permitted to continue functioning, the Circuit Court remanded the case back to the District Court for another trial in which Napster would be required to show that it could keep track of user activities on its network and restrict access to infringing material by its users. Napster wasn't able to comply and thus had to close down its service in July 2001. The following year, Napster filed for bankruptcy and sold its assets to a third party. [8] The owners of the service settled with songwriters and music publishers, agreeing to pay $26 million. [9]

Criticism and impact

Among a number of amicus briefs filed on behalf of both sides of the dispute, one particularly critical brief filed by a consortium of eighteen copyright law professors at United States universities argued that the District Court misread the Sony precedent and took too narrow a view of fair use. [10] The professors argued that the overbroad nature of the injunction threatened the development and deployment of any future peer-to-peer file-sharing network on the Internet because it insisted on a restructuring that defeated peer-to-peer technology itself. They also argued that the finding of contributory liability was erroneous because of Napster's significant non-infringing uses and because not all unauthorized uses within the system were copyright infringement. They concluded: "If Plaintiffs want copyright law extended to allow the suppression of new technologies, they must make their case to Congress." [11]

A number of file-sharing networks surfaced in Napster's wake, including Morpheus, Grokster, and KaZaA, many of which faced their own legal challenges over infringing behavior by their users. [10] In 2005, MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , went to the Supreme Court and is considered by many to be the sequel to the Napster case, addressing another technology that "outpaced the law." [12] Over the next few years, BitTorrent, another P2P technology, became the target of copyright scrutiny. Popular torrent trackers like the Pirate Bay faced long legal battles, [13] but their opponents have had little success in shutting down these services permanently.

See also

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005).

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.

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.

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>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

<i>BMG Music v. Gonzalez</i> U.S. court case

BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, was a court decision in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a record company could sue a person who engaged in online sharing of music files for copyright infringement. The decision is noteworthy for rejecting the defendant's fair use defense, which had rested upon her contention that she was merely "sampling" songs with the intention of possibly purchasing the downloaded songs in the future, a practice known informally as "try before you buy".

<i>Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.</i> Legal case

Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290, was a United States district court decision on the subject of deep linking and contributory infringement of copyright.

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.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but can instead be defended as fair use. The court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs, cannot be liable for contributory infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market, as it created a legal safe harbor for the technology.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.</i> 2007 American legal decision

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc. The court held that framing and hyperlinking of original images for use in an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, and thus not an infringement of the magazine's copyright ownership of the original images.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n is a court case in which the pornography magazine Perfect 10 filed a complaint against Visa and MasterCard for copyright infringement and trademark infringement.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Metallica, et al. v. Napster, Inc. was a 2000 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case 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.

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

ReDigi was an online marketplace for used digital music, eBooks, games, apps, and software. It claims to be the only cloud storage service that verifies whether each digital file uploaded for storage was legally acquired from an eligible source. ReDigi's Cloud and Marketplace only accept lawfully purchased digital media. The service allowed users to buy and sell pre-owned digital content directly from one user to another. As of December 2020, the website is offline.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th. Cir., 2001).
  2. 1 2 A&M Records, Inc. et. al. v. Napster (No. C 99-5183 MHP No. C 00-0074 MHP), United States District Court for the Northern District of California, via CNET.com
  3. ↑ List of RIAA member organizations, RIAA.com
  4. 1 2 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D. Cal., 2000).
  5. ↑ Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , 464 U.S. 417 (1984). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  6. ↑ United States Code Collection, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1001-10, Cornell University Law School.
  7. ↑ United States Code Collection, 17 U.S.C. § 512, Cornell University Law School.
  8. ↑ Douglas, Guy (July 9, 2010). "Copyright and Peer-To-Peer Music File Sharing: The Napster Case and the Argument Against Legislative Reform". Archived from the original on July 9, 2010. Retrieved September 26, 2022.
  9. ↑ John Borland, Napster reaches settlement with publishers , CNET (Sept. 24, 2001).
  10. 1 2 Brad King, Bracing for the Digital Crackdown , Wired (Aug. 22, 2002).
  11. ↑ Jessica Litman, et al., Brief Amicus Curiae of Copyright Law Professors in Support of Reversal , Consortium of 18 Copyright Law Professors (August 2000).
  12. ↑ Rod Smolla, You Say Napster, I Say Grokster , Slate (Dec. 14, 2004).
  13. ↑ Brian Heater, Pirate Bay Shutting Down; Are Torrents Dead? , PC Magazine (Nov. 17, 2009).

Text of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. is available from:  CourtListener    Findlaw    Justia    resource.org  

Further reading

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.