Napster Case Summary

Exposition. A peer-to-peer file sharing service called Napster is brought to court on charges of copyright infringements by all members of the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA. The RIAA filed an order to restrain Napster from allowing the exchange of songs through its service. The claims brought against Napster included direct, contributory, and vicarious infringements. Napster concocted a defense against the charges, citing the Audio Home Recording Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor clause, fair use, and that the case was being used to suppress new technologies. The case questions whether Napster acted morally and ethically when knowingly allowing users to violate copyright laws despite a business

Analysis. Arguments can be made for and against both sides in this lawsuit. Napster allowed people to share MP3 files with other people through its peer-to-peer file sharing service. The files included unreleased recordings, bootleg recordings, and older songs. Some people validated the use of the service by stating that they had already purchased the music in some other format. Napster cited fair use of the music for users to access the MP3 for music that was already owned in audio CD format; and the distribution of MP3s by new and established musicians in which permission was given. Napster did not charge its users a fee for the use of its system.

There have been many musical talents who credit Napster with helping them get their music heard. These musicians didn’t have the support of a major record label or the access to get their songs heard on the radio or television. Napster was open door that led to getting their music heard and shared by word of mouth in the peer-to-peer file sharing network. This then led to improved sales of not only the music but of merchandise and concerts as

RIAA provided evidence that Napster knowingly had copyrighted material available in its system and had the ability to either block or remove said material. Therefore, by failing to purge the system after learning of harboring copyrighted material, Napster is contributing to the direct infringement of the material.

A vicarious infringement was the third and last infringement claim. RIAA claimed that Napster could benefit financially from the copyright infringement by acquiring additional users and eventually subjecting the users to a pay for service model. RIAA also thought that Napster was capable of supervising and controlling the content that was available to its users.

III. Evaluation. Napster was not the only peer-to-peer file sharing entity; however, the RIAA filed a suit against the company regarding copyright infringements. Napster’s use of the Audio Home Recording Act and the fact that it did not store or control what the users uploaded or downloaded was its defense. The copyright infringement policy allowed copying for personal use and there was no clear law regarding distribution of music over the