Joint Infringement Defense Paper

I understand and agree with your post. Taking away the protection offered by the Copyrights Act will increase the financial insecurity for the new artist and lower the creation of new material. This is the reason I also completely agree with the court case ruling in against LimeWire

Lawyers for the recording industry argued that illegal downloading hurt the recording industry and that Joel Tenenbaum was a hardcore copy right infringer. Joel Tenenbaum argued in his defense also argued that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional and that Congress did not intend the law to impose liability or damages when the copyright infringements amount to "consumer copying." We're pleased with this decision," RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said after the Supreme Court's announcement Monday (2012). This is not the first such case of this nature either.

The Justice Department charged that Microsoft was unjustly forcing their customers to use the Microsoft internet browser to purchase music online. When a user clicks on the “Shop for Music Online” links in Windows, they are directed to use Microsoft’s internet browser, even if they want to use another browser (Bridis, 2004). This is unfair because it does not allow consumers to choose their own products. Furthermore, it allows Microsoft to reduce competition with rival browsers.

In 1999, Shawn Fanning and his little program called Napster created quite a stir in society. Napster's software allows music listeners to open pieces of their personal hard drives to everyone using Napster, sharing whatever MP3 songs they have already downloaded or stored. At any time, thousands of people are online, sharing hundreds of thousands of songs, many of which are technically illegal to download without the permission of the copyright holders. [1] This led to a lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America, with the rock group Metallica as its frontman. In this case, several issues were brought up, one of which was the right of the creator of the music to control what happens with

The Court is asked to review thousands of cases every year and the incorrect ruling by the 7th Circuit may have forced the Court to grant certiorari. American Needle was an opportunity for the Court to clarify their opinion in Copperweld and decide the case based on the narrow issue before them. The Court was likely hesitant to go beyond because of the wide implications their holding would have on professional sports associations. It was not only the NFL that had an interest in the outcome but also a host of other sports associations. In the end the Court correctly held that based on the facts of the case the NFL could not bring up the single-entity defense. The main concern is that American Needle is a ruling on intellectual property and has not closed the door on sports associations colluding to create unreasonable restraints based on defense of being a

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s summary judgement and enjoinment of the laws public disclosure provision. The Supreme Court reversed judgement.

The question of law before the court was whether or not LimeWire should be held accountable for copyright infringement. The court ruled in the Recording Industry Association of America’s favor and the verdict stood that LimeWire was liable of copyright infringement. The RIAA sought up to $150,000 per copyright violation, claiming “ninety-three percent of the program was unauthorized copyright material.” (“LimeWire Crushed in RIAA Infringement Lawsuit”). Mr. Judge Wood of the United States District Court in Manhattan stated in a synopsis that LimeWire and its designer, Mark Gorton, had perpetrated copyright infringement, joined in inequitable rivalry and influenced others to enact copyright infringement. LimeWire highly disagreed with the ruling and declared that they intended to stay in business.

Facts: Grokster, Ltd. and another company, StreamCast Networks Inc, created software that allowed users to share electronic files through a series of peer-to-peer networks on computers without using a central server. This software allowed users to share any type of digital file, but most people used the software to share and distribute copyright music and video files without permission of the copyright holders, which was encouraged by the software companies. As a response a group of movie studies and other copyright holders sued Grokster and StreamCast for the infringement on their copyrights, arguing that the software companies were knowingly and intentionally using their software

The District challenged the ALJ’s decision in Federal District Court, but that Court approved the ALJ’s IDEA ruling and granted summary judgment against the

I believe that they handled this case fairly and justace was served. Selling music without copyright happens more, today, than you think. There are tons of websites on lock down selling music without permission. The simple fact that music is very popular and everybody loves it, you can make a lot of money off of music which is why this lawsuit was so big. I think there could have been other ways that LimeWire could have done if they were interested in wanting music. Knowing that music is so big, there are tons of recording compny that would be glad to get more money, however because ego gets in the way of some people, thinking they're smart, take the easy way out and end up getting caught. Being very cautious and guarded when handling business especially big businessess like this one, one wrong move and they could potentally take all your money legally, which is what happened

The case of Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (2005) 220 ALR 1 was an Australian court case involving music labels suing the distributors (Sharman parties) of software that authorized access to the Kazaa peer to peer network. The court case involved the responsibility of the distributors for authorising copyright infringement by giving authorization to users to infringe copyright materials by sharing copyright-protected material without permission of owner. The court decided there had been authorization by the Sharman parties for infringement to occur due to the knowledge the Sharman parties knew. The legal and non-legal responses were effective in ensuring amendments to current acts and educating people on the copyright laws. Sharman Networks Ltd had authorised the infringing conduct of Kazaa users.

Before reaching the Supreme Court, this case was heard by the federal district court, which held in favor of Sony. Universal then appealed this decided to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the federal district courts decision and held that Universal is entitled to enjoin the distribution of the Betamax.

They were not directly liable for any infringement. However, as previously stated they found that the StreamCast and Grokster software were capable of substantially lawful and neither company could be held liable. If you publish anything on computer software it is important that you are legally protected for the copyright law and to make the distributors liable will only make the copyright protection meaningless. There was no knowledge of infringement. According to the United States Supreme Court, “The court also held that Grokster and StreamCast did not materially contribute to their users' infringement because it was the users themselves who searched for, retrieved, and stored the infringing files, with no involvement by the defendants beyond providing the software in the first place” (Souter, Justice,

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

Companies like Apple, have decided that it is best to get in with the downloading business. However, an end to the illegal downloading conflict remains to be realized. The RIAA and associated artists continue to wage war against illegal downloaders while computer savvy audiences persist in sharing music files online every day. While it is undoubtedly true that downloading music is a crime, it remains to be proven that it is wrong. Without establishing this principle, most downloader's are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means of downloading files, they can still be shared for free online. The rift must be repaired between music lovers who feel that they have been taken advantage of in the past and recording companies and artists who worry about their future livelihood.