Napster

Downloading music has become more popular than actually purchasing music. Of course, CDs can be expensive, and with the invention of the Internet, using Napster is a tempting way to obtain all of the music you want.

However, in 2000, the maker of Napster had a lawsuit brought against him. Musical artists and record labels grew tired of the population downloading music instead of purchasing it. They felt cheated because the time and money they spent producing an album was hefty and listeners weren't even paying to support their favorite artists.

Not just one or two record companies were angry with Napster stealing their thunder, there is a laundry list of record companies that lined up to sue Napster.

Record companies against Napster include A&M Records, Geffen Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Records, and many more.

In 2000, A&M Records filed suit against Napster. The case was almost too obvious. It was against the law to share music files between peers without paying. Of course, there were fair uses of the music sharing, such as sampling a song before purchasing it and artists having free songs to download (just as they do on iTunes today). However, most of the use of the site was to illegally download music for free. The 9th Circuit Court found that Napster was guilty of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.

Contributory infringement is defined as a copyright infringement where the person knows that they are contributing to others infringing on copyrighted work and does nothing to stop it. In this case, Napster knew that their users were infringing on copyright law by illegally downloading music but were not doing anything to stop it.

Vicarious infringement is when one has a financial interest in the copyrighting that is taking place but is not doing anything to stop it. Napster had a lucrative business before the U.S. Circuit Courts slammed down on it, shutting down Napster forever.

While contributing to vicarious or contributory infringement, one does not directly take place in the copyright infringement. Napster was not illegally downloading, but allowing users to illegally download.

As you already know, Napster is no longer in existence but several other peer-to-peer music sharing services have popped up in it's place. LimeWire and Kazaa are the new "Napster" and new legal issues are cropping up with these new services.

As put by an article from CNN.com, law professor Doug Lichtman says "I think the critical point to remember is that Napster is being accused of *helping* users commit the bad act. ... The party who drives the getaway car for his bank robber friends surely shouldn't be allowed to skirt liability for bank robbery, right?" (CNN.com)

Sources:

"A&M RECORDS, INC. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)." LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. 18 Apr. 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. .

"A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia." Main Page - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .

"CNN.com - Appeals Court to Hear Napster Case Monday - September 29, 2000." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 29 Sept. 2000. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. .