The Case Of Metallica V Napster

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.

Digital economy as a whole has changed a lot throughout history. Digital economy in the aspect

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 pervasive nature of the Internet has made the copying of music and software exceptionally easy, fast and for the most part, undetectable. The ubiquity of the Internet and the speed at which music and software can be copied is also changing the sociological and legal aspects of computing as well (De George, 2006). For the first time the availability of technology is driving a level of expertise with computer users globally that give them the opportunity to capture, distribute, duplicate and even re-publish massive amounts of intellectual property that isn't theirs (Wilson, 2007). This is forcing the issue of copyright infringement and the protection of intellectual property at a global scale. In so doing, this dynamics is also re-ordering ethics surrounding all forms of digital content as well.

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

The battle of the Recording Industry Association of America (R.I.I.A.) vs. LimeWire had as its goal to settle an issue over music piracy. LimeWire was a free peer-to-peer file-sharing network which shared both authorized song and unauthorized songs. The legal campaign of RIAA v. The People started on September 8, 2003, and lasted for five years (1).

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.

Current copyright protection is entitled to provide the essential mechanism for the insurance of the success viability of creative industries by rewarding and incentivising the creators of original works relating to films, music and broadcasts. The Copyright Act 1968 is initially designed to protect although, despite this, the advancement of technology has led to abuse of the Act, subsequently to withhold its dexterity, the Act has required modification, through; case and statute law. While acknowledging this, it must be understood that the codes; Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), Copyright Regulations 1969 (Cth), Copyright Tribunal Procedure Regulations 1969 (Cth) and the Copyright International Protection Regulations 1969 (Cth) are applied automatically once the work has been published in an accessible format; provided that the author/s are current citizens or residents of Australia. Throughout this report, the Copyright Act 1968 will be analysed in depth to provide a detailed understanding of whether it is possible for the law to be proactive with regards to future technologies. In a developing world of rapid changes and advancements in technology and human behaviour, there is no specific measure that can completely eliminate online copyright infringement.

They brought forth a lawsuit, charging Napster with copyright infringement. A judge in California entered a preliminary injunction against Napster. He ordered Napster to block users from exchanging copyrighted material. Napster in turn appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2001, the appellate court upheld most of the lower court’s ruling. Napster was accused of being in violation of copyright. In order to establish their case; the plaintiffs; the record labels needed to prove ownership of the allegedly infringed material. They also needed to prove that Napster had violated at least one exclusive right granted to the copyright holders. In turn the record companies produced evidence that they owned approximately 70 percent of the files available on Napster. They also proved that the majority of Napster’s users used Napster’s MusicShare to transfer and share copyrighted files.

Major record companies and internationally known bands such as Metallica and many others soon realized how badly Napster was taking a toll on their profits resulting in a major lawsuit charging Napster with contributory and vicarious copyright infringement -(“Piracy and File-Sharing”).  Napster appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court noted that plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement, meaning that the record labels had to prove their ownership of the allegedly infringed content in order to establish their case -(“Piracy and File- Sharing”). 

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.

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).

Identify and discuss these copyright challenges in the modern digital economy using examples from case law.

The rise of the Internet era opened the whole new market for traditional media full of opportunities as well as threats. Online piracy being one of them because the music and film industry loses £5.4bn in a year and if it was reduced by 10% it could have created up to 13 thousand jobs in the UK. There are various attempts taken to fight with online piracy; a case study of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement will be considered as well as other legislations attempting to regulate copyrights in the Internet. This

1. The legal issue involved in this case is the piracy of music from various artists that is easily accesible to everybody from the website called “Napster”. The moral issue in this case is the music being stolen according to the music companies or the music was just being borrowed by people all over the internet according to Napster supporters. The difference between the two is the legal issue is based on actual evidence like there is a law imposed about this case while the moral issue is based on strong likelihood or firm conviction. The systematic, corporate issue is about the website booming and how it affects the music industry while the individual issue is the persons who makes