Napster's Legal Battle: Breaking Copyright Laws

Napster was a peer-to-peer file-sharing service that allowed users to access and exchange MP3 music files for free. In doing so, it facilitated copyright infringement on a massive scale. The company was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and heavy metal band Metallica, who alleged vicarious copyright infringement under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1996. Napster argued that its system was protected by fair use, but the courts disagreed, and the company was forced to block the transfer of copyrighted material. The legal battles and resulting financial strain led to Napster's demise in 2001, just two years after its launch.

Napster's defence of the VCR precedent

Napster's attorney, David Boies, asserted that it was perfectly legal for Napster users to share MP3 music through its service, as long as the site did not charge a fee. He also argued that Napster's service was simply an extension of the "fair use" doctrine that allows someone who buys a CD to record it onto tape for listening enjoyment. Boies claimed that as long as a consumer is not acting with a commercial purpose, they are not acting unlawfully.

Napster also contended that its system was fair use, rather than infringement, and supported this argument with claims that Napster users used the service to make temporary copies before purchasing music ("sampling") and to access music they already owned in CD format ("space shifting").

However, the Ninth Circuit Court rejected Napster's arguments, holding that the district court did not err in its interpretation of expert testimony on Napster's deleterious effects on the recording industry. The court also rejected Napster's characterisation of its service as merely an opportunity for users to "sample" (browse) sound recordings. The court further held that Napster's service did more than permit "space-shifting" of sound recordings and that it was aware of direct copyright infringement by its users.

In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's injunction against Napster, requiring the company to block users from exchanging copyrighted material.

Copyright violation lawsuits

Napster, the brainchild of Shawn Fanning, linked computers and allowed users to access each other’s mp3 audio files. In June 1999, Fanning met Sean Parker on a webchat channel, and together they triggered a series of events that brought the record business to its knees by making music discovery instant and payment optional.

In the year 2000, Napster created something of a music-fan’s utopia—a world in which nearly every song ever recorded was instantly available on your home computer, and free. Even to some at the time, it sounded too good to be true, and in the end, it was. The fantasy world that Napster created came crashing down in 2001 in the face of multiple copyright-violation lawsuits.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a $20 billion infringement case against Napster, which was decided in favour of the RIAA on February 12, 2001. The decision rejected Napster’s claims of fair use, as well as its call for the court to institute a payment system that would have compensated the record labels while allowing Napster to stay in business.

On March 5, 2001, Napster was ordered to remove, within 72 hours, any songs named by the plaintiffs in a list of their copyrighted material on the Napster network. The company began the process of complying with this order the following day, and shut down its service just three months later.

Heavy metal band Metallica, which had publicly expressed its distaste for Napster, applauded the ruling, seeing it as a victory for artists. Metallica sued Napster, alleging “vicarious copyright infringement” under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1996. Hip-hop artist Dr. Dre soon did the same.

Napster argued that it had engaged in fair use of the copyrighted material, and if so, it did not violate copyright laws. The doctrine of fair use first developed in court decisions and was later made a part of copyright law, in section 107 of U.S. copyright law. According to the law, a reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair” if used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. The law also provides four factors to be used in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
• The nature of the copyrighted work
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
• The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

Determining whether a use is fair or an infringement of copyright is often difficult. For example, when examining the amount of a work that has been used, there is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may be safely taken without permission. Moreover, merely acknowledging the source of copyrighted material is not a substitute for obtaining permission from the copyright holder.

Napster contended that its system was fair use, rather than infringement, and supported this argument with claims that users used the service to make temporary copies before purchasing music (“sampling”), and to access music they already owned in CD format (“space shifting”). The district and appellate court rejected both these claims. Sampling was ruled to be a commercial use, and although wholesale copying does not preclude a claim of fair use, it militates against such a finding. In addition, the recording industry established that its marketability had been affected by Napster.

Contributory copyright infringement

Napster was a peer-to-peer file-sharing service that allowed users to copy music files from other users' computer hard drives. This was made possible by Napster's MusicShare software, which was available for free download on the Napster website.

Napster was sued by major record companies for contributory copyright infringement. Contributory copyright infringement is a form of secondary liability, where a person or entity may be held liable for copyright infringement even though they did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the case of Napster, the company was accused of having "actual knowledge" of infringing activity and providing its software and services to the infringers, thus "materially contributing" to the infringement.

To establish contributory copyright infringement, two requirements need to be fulfilled: the defendant must have knowledge of a direct infringement, and the defendant must materially contribute to that infringement. In the case of Napster, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the company had "actual knowledge" of the infringing activity, as evidenced by the fact that a majority of Napster users were using the system to download and upload copyrighted material. The court also determined that Napster's provision of software and services to facilitate the infringement constituted a material contribution.

The concept of contributory copyright infringement is based on the case of Kalem v Harper Brothers in 1911 and was further developed in the Gershwin Publishing Corp v Columbia Artists Management Inc. decision. In this case, the court defined contributory infringement as occurring when someone, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.

In the United States, the doctrine of contributory infringement is enshrined in copyright law, and it has been applied in various cases involving peer-to-peer services, including Napster, Aimster, Grokster, and Morpheus.

Napster's claims of fair use

Napster was a peer-to-peer file-sharing service that allowed users to copy music files from other users' computer hard drives. The service was launched in 1999 by college student Shawn Fanning and, at its peak, was estimated to have up to 60 million users.

Major record companies quickly realised Napster's threat to their profits and took legal action, charging the company with contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Napster, however, argued that it had engaged in fair use of the copyrighted material and thus had not violated copyright laws.

Sampling

Napster contended that its users employed the service to make temporary copies of music files before purchasing them. The courts, however, rejected this claim, ruling that such sampling constituted a commercial use, even if some users eventually bought the music.

Space Shifting

Napster also argued that its users relied on the service to access music they already owned in CD format. While wholesale copying does not preclude a claim of fair use, the courts found that this argument also militated against such a finding.

In addition to these claims, Napster asserted that the online trading of MP3 music files fell within the parameters of the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, which permits copying music for personal use.

To support their case, Napster pointed to the doctrine of fair use, which is outlined in section 107 of U.S. copyright law. According to this law, a reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair" if used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. The law also provides four factors to be considered when determining whether a particular use is fair:

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes.
• The nature of the copyrighted work.
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
• The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Despite Napster's claims of fair use, the courts ultimately ruled against the company, finding that it had knowledge of direct infringement and was liable for contributory copyright infringement.

The legality of peer-to-peer file sharing

In the US, copyright infringement can result in civil and criminal penalties, including fines of up to $150,000 per work infringed and imprisonment of up to five years. In the UK, copyright infringement can result in civil and criminal penalties, and both the uploader and downloader of copyrighted material may face penalties.

The case of Napster, a popular peer-to-peer file-sharing platform, illustrates the legal complications that can arise. Napster was sued by several record companies for copyright infringement as it facilitated users in sharing copyrighted music files without permission. The court held Napster liable and ordered it to cease operations, and it was later relaunched as a legal, pay-per-download service.

To avoid legal issues, individuals should ensure they have the necessary permissions before sharing copyrighted files and comply with relevant data protection laws. Organisations should also implement protective measures such as encryption and access control policies to secure sensitive information.

Frequently asked questions