Key Facts In The Grokser Case

Directions: First, you will complete a thorough summary of the text [remember that summaries include relevant information from beginning, middle, and end of text].

2. Using the evidence you found during your reading, summarize the background of this case in three complete sentences.

To answer this, Copyright Law must be understood. Copyright Laws protect intellectual property, and ownership rights. Artists can control their content by selling, leasing it or giving it away. Artists can grant permission for their work and have the freedom to charge. It encourages creativity, and protects the creativity by keeping it exclusive to the creator which allows profit. Mass media embodies the Copyright content,

1 Summary: After listing the name of the book and author, summarize the book concisely in 500 “tight” words (no more than 2 pages). Prove that you comprehend the reading by writing a no-nonsense summary. The summary is not a commentary or listing of topics, but rather a heartfelt, condensed, insightful synopsis of the longer, more elaborate book. Cite the book in text at least once per paragraph, and include page numbers for direct quotations.

The case of A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., record companies brought infringement action against Napster for the unfair use of copyrighted work and harmed the potentiality of music within the market (239 F3d 1004, 2001). With the burgeoning of the internet age, musicians and artists were faced with the threat of in home piracy, via file sharing programs like Napster, or Grokster.

One of the most common, yet controversial, issues of First Amendment law is the subject of copyright and infringement. Although the subject may not seem major at first, many different issues and controversies have risen and become more common than ever over the years. The issues that have become pertinent to this subject are endless, including trademark infringement, piracy, theft, fraud, plagiarism, and many more. With the coming of age and advancement of technology, these cases have become more common and appear more often than ever before. Government officials have always been strict about copyright rulings, and have tried to deliver fair and just rulings for both parties involved under First Amendment rules. Because the owner’s work and material is protected under the First Amendment, it gets tricky when involving another party that can claim the same work of art. In short, the definition of copyright has always been cut and dry: allowing owners of creative works the right to control and profit from their creations. It is basically recognized as a form of property ownership.

You will supplement the summary with an explanation of why you have included EACH fact by highlighting background facts in yellow and facts relevant to the legal issues in

The second part of the brief is the facts of the case. This is the summary or background that led to this particular dispute. It resembles a journalist’s report offering only the basic “who, what, where, when, how and why” of the trial and case record leading up to the present appeal. Included

1. Many were pleased that the social moral wrong doing was rectified and that fairness had conclusively prevailed when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Its purpose was “to overcome stereotyped thinking” (Lecture, Week 6). On the other hand, individuals were enraged and disappointed. Barry Goldwater opposed this Act by stating that one cannot legislate morality because “The justices cannot, of course, invoke their own personal morality, nor the ideals and virtues of morality generally” (Sandel, 249). He aimed for a “neutral state” that “respects individual choice” (Sandel, 219). Laws are created based on one’s own moral beliefs, science, and logic.

FACTS: The defendant, Peter Junger, a computer law professor at Case Western Reserve University challenged the United States government's regulations of encryption software. The regulations in place prevented U.S. citizens from being able to export encryption source code (or publishing/disseminating) over the internet. Junger was concerned that international students might not be able to join his encryption technology class that he taught and that any encrypting software he creates and wants to post on his

The second part of the brief is the facts of the case. This is the summary or background that led to this particular dispute. It resembles a journalist’s report offering only the basic “who, what, where, when, how and why” of the trial and case record leading up to the present appeal. Included in this is a brief statement of the plaintiff’s argument and the defendant’s argument.

Copyright is the legal right, to an inventor to perform, print, publish, film, or record artistic, literary, or musical material, and to allow others to do the same. Copyright law was developed to provide the creators and inventors of any works with powerful and effective rights of exclusivity over their creations (Patterson & Lindberg, 1991). Over the past, these rights were almost unlimited. People would use existing developments as if they were their own without any regard of the creator’s exclusive rights. The need to balance and limit such rights arose, and governments established these limits for the general good of the public.

One needs to have a basic understanding of the purpose behind copyright laws as the founding fathers had intended. As stated in the “Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the

This case was quickly followed by another well-know copyright infringement through free software situation. As John Zelezny’s text, Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media, notes, “two companies, Grokster and StreamCast Networks, distributed free software that allowed users to share digital files through peer-to-peer networks where personal computers communicated directly with each other and not through a central service” (Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints and the Modern Media, 2011, p. 360).

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).