Homeworks academic service


An overview of the complaint of recording industry association against napster

This was the start of a still ongoing campaign against file-sharing and related practises. In the fourth and last part the slow death of Napster is highlighted when Bertelsmann AG bought the sued file sharing service and failed to turn it into a sustainable business model. Napster, thus, did not just feverishly work on an effective filter system, but tried to bring about a settlement out of the court with the record companies.

A few days before the oral argument, highest-ranking representatives of the record majors — Edgar J.

  1. Of the four defendants, only Aaron Sherman of Rensselaer would confirm he is being sued, and he declined further comment. Judge Patel ordered in the following hearing that Napster could only be reactivated if 100 percent of the copyright infringing content would be filtered.
  2. The RIAA could have gone through Princeton's administrative process and filed a complaint against the student running the Wake site, said Lauren Robinson-Brown, director of communications at Princeton.
  3. The three-judge panel Court of Appeals 2000b. But the networks named in the lawsuits are internal college networks, known as local area networks, or LANs, and are not seen by the RIAA software.
  4. Napster's head lawyer David Boies said the company would appeal immediately. The music industry has fought back against file sharing through the courts and by creating its own online music services, such as MusicNet and Pressplay, through which consumers can use their computers to buy or rent music, some of which they can download and burn onto CDs.
  5. RIAA and the music majors felt mocked by this offer. The hearing before the Court of Appeals on October 2, 2000, that was broadcast live by CNN did not bring any new insights in the case.

Napster offered them a 60 percent share in the company. After the negotiations with the record majors came to an end, Schmidt continued to talk with Hank Barry and John Hummer on a further collaboration. Otherwise the loan could be converted into just 35 percent of the Napster stock Menn 2003: The other record companies were not interested anymore in Napster and held up the lawsuit against Napster.

According to the deal, Napster was allowed to continue its file sharing service, and Bertelsmann kept the lawsuit up as long as a new business model had not been launched. In other words, Napster had no sustainable business model and the deal did not change the legal status-quo for Napster.

The Bertelsmann executives had erred and Middlehoff later recalled: Furthermore, the news from the court front were frustrating too. The hearing before the Court of Appeals on October 2, 2000, that was broadcast live by CNN did not bring any new insights in the case. The three-judge panel Court of Appeals 2000b: The Napster case was returned to the district court for modification.

Judge Patel worked out a modified preliminary injunction that was issued on March 6, 2001.

Access Check

The Napster users, however, circumvented the filter system by naming the files in a different way. Thus, the record companies again complaint about the holes in the system and Judge Patel ordered Napster to establish a perfect filtering software latest until June 28, 2001. Otherwise Napster would have to be closed down by the court Menn 2003: RIAA and the music majors felt mocked by this offer.

It was more than questionable if a P2P file-sharing platform would ever collect subscription fees.

Legal Blog Network

Thus, RIAA demanded of Napster to stop copyright infringement, to stop delaying court decisions and to strengthen the efforts to build an effective filtering system. Otherwise, Napster would have to be shut down by the court. Napster, therefore, had to work intensively on a perfect filtering system. At the end of June Napster was able to present a new system that was able to filter 98 percent of infringing content.

Judge Patel had ordered a 100 percent filtering.

Napster loses net music copyright case

Since the next court hearing was fixed for July 11, 2001, Napster decided to shut down the system on July 1, 2001. Thus, more than 2 million users were cut off from file sharing simultaneously ibid: This marks more or less the end of Napster. Judge Patel ordered in the following hearing that Napster could only be reactivated if 100 percent of the copyright infringing content would be filtered.

Dre withdrew their lawsuits a day after the court order. Hank Barry, therefore, was not seen as the person who could turn Napster into a legal service. The negotiations seemed promising for both sides. The Bertelsmann executives, however, were not satisfied.

Top Legal Blogs

The majors wanted to license 7,000 songs to Napster and only for use on personal computers. In March 2002, in became clear that a deal was out of sight ibid: At that time, Napster was a shadow of itself, whereas other file-sharing systems prospered.

Napster had been shrunk to a very limited subscription service with no future potential to grow. In a last desperate attempt, the Bertelsmann executives took over the control of Napster. At the end of July, the Bertelsmann board decided to dismiss Middelhoff and to replace him by a conservative Bertelsmann veteran ibid: Thus, Napster had to file bankruptcy in November 2002.

So the story of Napster took an inglorious end. Conclusions The detailed analysis of the Napster case allows several important conclusions. Digital natives such as Shawn Fanning, Jordan Ritter and Sean Parker challenged the established players in the music industry by introducing a disruptive technology Christensen 1997. When MP3 technology appeared it was initially ignored.

When is could not by ignored any longer, its role for the record companies was played down. When its relevance for the music industry became could not any longer denied, the new practices such as file sharing were fiercely fought on the basis of copyright law.

The record companies hesitated to adopt the new technological possibilities for their business model and did everything to maintain control on music distribution.

RIAA files complaint against Napster for non-compliance

The music majors wanted to force Napster to play by their rules — to license their music catalogues for their own terms. The licensing costs should then be recouped by stake in Napster — a model that was later applied at Spotify.

The main aim, therefore, was to control the copyrighted music content. In the Napster trial the economic damage caused by Napster was most relevant issue. It triggered a variety of file sharing studies that tried to measure the impact of file sharing on recorded music sales. Napster did not directly infringe copyright, but benefited from the infringements by its users and even promoted infringing usage of copyrighted music.

However, when Napster went offline other more sophisticated file sharing systems had replaced Napster. File sharing was even more popular than in the best days of Napster. Thus, the music industry went on to sue file sharing and file hosting services and even individual file sharers.