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.
According to the text A Gift of Fire, Napster “opened on the Web in 1999 as a service that allowed its users to copy songs in MP3 files from the hard disks of other users” (Baase, 2013, p. 192, Section 4.1.6 Sharing Music: The
…show more content…
Louis School of Law, “Washington Law Blog”, Case Study: A & M Records v. Napster, Inc., para. 1). Napster did not stay in business long after the higher courts ruling.
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).
The entertainment industry expressed its displeasure when Metro-Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) and “other film studios, songwriters, music publishers and recording companies filed suit against both Grokster and the StreamCast Network” (Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints and the Modern Media, 2011, p. 360). This landmark case made its way to the hallowed halls of the United States Supreme Court after the higher court granted review of the lower federal courts decision to side with the defendants (Grokster and StreamCast). Thus was born the case MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). The Supreme Court under began hearing arguments in this case in
Among the Biblical standards present in this case are trust, respect, responsibility, fairness, and citizenship. With respect to trust, Napster claims that it has put trust in its users that they will not download or share copyrighted material. Though Napster itself does not steal any copyrighted material, it has been proven that, more often than not, its users do. Napster users have not shown respect for the autonomy of the artists who produce the copyrighted music that they are downloading. Though the company is receiving much criticism, Napster has shown some semblance of responsibility, fairness, and citizenship.
This case with the A & M Records vs. Napster, Inc. stated that record companies and music producers are filing a lawsuit against Napster. Napster is an online media source that serves the consumers for downloading music to their tablets, I phone’s, MP3 players, to where the consumers must have access to the Napster system to receive files and data. The A & M records are suing for the copyrights that the Napster is taking advantage from the music industry that the company had no rights to give permission over to Napster to transfer through servers. The A & M Records must have evidence that shows the ownership of the material and the copyright.
Traditional legal principles and processes are constantly challenged by the need to keep pace with copyright issues in particular piracy.
For many years illegal file sharing and music swapping has been going on. Two very popular cases are the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster case and the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster case. Both cases differ in many ways however they also have similarities. A lot of music and other sorts of entertainment are being distributed for free all over the internet. What some people do not think of are the consequences that will be faced if they get caught. Not only is the distributor at risk for getting caught but those of us that download the software illegally can be charged.
A&M Records vs Napster was one of the biggest copyright infringement cases that later defined the legality of file sharing. It was a class action lawsuit that include over fifteen major record labels including Universal Studios, Warner Bros, and Sony Entertainment. The official case though is called A&M Records vs Napster. A&M Records sued Napster claiming they were infringing on their plaintiff's intellectual property. Napster was a peer to peer file sharing service. It was mostly used to share mp3 music files in mass volumes. This was right at the start of mp3 players. Music was starting to become easily accessible through digital copies.
Napster was eventually shut down after two years of being in
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 other element of vicarious infringement relates to the supervision Napster had over its users’ conduct. The court concluded that Napster’s ability terminate a user who was engaged in “conduct [that] violates applicable law” amounted to the ability to monitor the system for infringing material being uploaded and shared. This part of the decision, the Appeals Court affirms in part because Napster can only patrol its system for infringing material in ways that the system’s architecture allows. The district court’s ruling that Napster must ensure that no “copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing” of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted work occurs on its system, does not take into account that Napster’s system is not capable of such control, and that it is the responsibility of the copyright holders to inform Napster of specific files of the copyrighted works on the system. This part of the ruling was remanded by the Appeals Court to be altered to better reflect the capacity
“After a string of adverse legal decisions, Napster, Inc. began its death spiral on March 6, 2001, when it began complying with a Federal court order to block the transfer of copyrighted material over its peer-to-peer network” (History.com). The death spiral of Napster happened rapidly. After Napster went out of business many websites like pandora and Spotify learned from Napster’s mistakes and got legal rights to the music but without Napster, they wouldn't be around.
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 problem that the music industry had with Napster was that it was a big, automated way to copy copyrighted material. It is a fact that thousands of people were, through Napster, making thousands of copies of copyrighted songs, and neither the music industry nor the artists got any money in return
A&M Records v. Napster is a landmark case in which the application of intellectual property laws has forever impacted contemporary culture with regards to digital works. The legal issues and applicable laws presented in the instant case resulted in a holding, which set forth a precedent that has influence the mode and means of digital works distribution. The outcome of Napster affects both businesses and individuals.
A new type of theft has had a spike in the recent years, in which the internet has become extremely prominent at this time. This new theft is called “online piracy” This theft occurs when an online user uses a P2P(Peer to peer) website for file sharing, and shares files such as songs or software. This is considered theft due the fact that the files aren’t free, they have a price to them. Music Piracy is an abomination to artistry, and the creation of Art. It must be abolished.
Digital music piracy, or the unlawful downloading of copyrighted music, has been a controversial topic for more than a decade now. The issue was first brought to attention in 1998 when Shawn Fanning created Napster. Though the MP3 file was originally developed in 1987, Napster represented the first mainstream and user-friendly program to transfer and download these files. Napster, a peer-to-peer (P2P) program, allowed online users to connect with one another and swap copyrighted music, videos, and other files contained on their computers, thus providing a way to get free music online. (157)
Early 1999 Heavy metal band Metallica discovered that a demo version of their song ‘I Disappear’ was being spread throughout the online file sharing website before it had actually been released. This meant that radio stations were able to access and play the track. Due to this the band filed a lawsuit against Napster. A month later Rapper and music producer Dr.Dre also filled a law suit against Napster, this was after a failed attempt in asking Napster to remove his music off the website. After a year they settled both lawsuits, but this was the end of the dispute with the music industry and Napster. In 1999 the RIAA ( The Recording Industry Association of America) filed a lawsuit on behalf of many record labels who felt that Napster was infringing on their copyrights. By 2000 Napster was ordered to remove any copyrighted music away from its sight and by early 2001 Napster closed down its online sight as ordered by a judge. ‘The digital music revolution it unleashed has since brought a once-mighty recording industry to its knees’; Many feel that Napster was the sole reason for the destruction of CD despite the closing of the website, it only paved the way for other models to come along and find a legal way of streaming music to the public.