MGM Studios, Inc. V. Grokster Case

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.

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

According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded between 2004 and 2009. Even with sites like iTunes and Rhapsody offering legal downloads, peer-to-peer file sharing still exists. Illegally downloading music has had a significant impact on the music industry resulting in a loss of profits and jobs, and changing how music is delivered to the masses. (Adkins, n.d.) Showing that even having the ethically correct option P2P sharing of illegal media is still thriving. The RIAA reports that music sales in the United States have dropped

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

First, it is important to discuss the direct, contributory and vicarious infringement claims against Napster. Direct copyright infringement claims are based on a breach of a copyright owners’ exclusive rights to the copyrighted work(s). A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). Napster was found liable for this because the users used its platform to upload and download copyrighted music, thus infringing on two exclusive rights: reproduction and distribution. Id at 1014. Contributory copyright infringement claims are based on secondary infringers who have either actual or

Starting in the year 1999, a company called Napster opened up a whole new world to the Internet where every song ever made was instantly available to you on your computer for free. It was created by an 18-year-old Northeastern University student named Shawn Fanning. Napster transformed personal computers into servers that shared mp3 files all across the Internet (Mayer, 2008). It became popular very quickly because exchanging mp3 files freely and having any music desired right at your fingertips had never been possible before. However, this program that provided the privilege of having free instant music to download did not last long, it was shut down after just two years by

Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.

The issues that will be slugged out in federal district court in San Francisco sound a little too pop culture to be all that serious. How many music CDs are people buying these days in record stores throughout the nation because of Napster? Is the technology that Napster uses legal? Napster is, of course, the wildly popular file-sharing service whose 20 million users have downloaded some half a billion songs--most copyrighted for free. The technology that Napster has brought to music listeners across the globe has allowed the freedom of obtaining music for free and should not be shut down by the entertainment industry's argument in federal court.

The question then became “Just because we can get the music we want without paying for it, should we?” (Tyson, 2000, p.1). This issue of illegal downloads, which is also referred to as piracy, has been a hot topic ever since the introduction of Napster. According to Recording Industry Association of America “In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion” (RIAA, 2014).

When Napster closed its gates in 2000, there were 20 million users angry and confused, leaving many people to blame Metallica: the iconic heavy metal group. They felt that the music that was being distributed violated the intellectual property law. The group blamed Napster (in its free form idea), not Napster Inc. (today) that they were not being compensated for and also one of the major reasons for the slumping record sales. The only problem I see with this is that the “slaying of one enemy only to seed the field with a thousand new opponents – opponents who are, not indecently, its own best customers.” (Cave and Quistgaard) Programs like Kazaa, Gnutella, WinMX and a thousand more just like its predecessor have one key difference: there is no central server. This means now the record label cannot individually sue. Or can they?

First, it is important to discuss the direct, contributory and vicarious infringement claims against Napster. Direct copyright infringement claims are based on a breach of a copyright owners’ exclusive rights to the copyrighted work(s). A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). Napster was found liable for this because the users used its platform to upload and download copyrighted music, thus infringing on two exclusive rights: reproduction and distribution. Id at 1014. Contributory copyright infringement claims are based on secondary infringers who have either actual or

Introduction: Setting the trend for the future, the distribution and consumption of recorded music transformed dramatically with the launching of Apple’s iTunes in 2001. The proliferation of online music subscription services and other music sharing services exerted a great pressure on the conventional music distribution business model. Combined with this transformation, piracy of digital music had a profound impact on the whole industry. These worsening conditions in the market place for recorded music forced both established and upcoming new artists to experiment with new ways of selling their music.

Digitalization, data compression, and the internet have affected the music industry significantly. These technologies have shifted the recording industries from hard-copy recordings to digital music distribution. This has made it easier for consumers to enter the music market through copying. Consumers have access to copying technology that allows them to obtain music without paying the record label. The situations clipped high in 1999 when Napster, a file-sharing service was launched. The service facilitated music file sharing on a wider scale. The consumers just download the music and transfer it to a digital music device. This has negatively affected the trade value of music sales, for instance in

Ever since 18-year-old Shawn Fanning created Napster in his Northeastern University dorm room in 1999, downloading and sharing music online has become one of the most popular things to do on the Internet today. But why wouldn't it? Getting all your favorite songs from all your favorite artists for free, who wouldn't want to start sharing music? The answer to that question are the people who feel that stealing from the music industry is not morally right, because that is exactly what every person who shares music is doing. People who download music think it's something they can get away with but now it might be payback time to a lot of those people.

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.