Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
After months of anticipation, a decision has been made in the case between Napster and the music industry. For now, Napster will remain in business under a modified injunction.
Napster, a popular online music service, has been in hot water since five major labels sued the company in December 1999. Napster provides thousands of music lovers with the opportunity to download songs by any artist, much to the chagrin of Sony, Warner, BMG, EMI and Universal record labels.
“People download and can have their favorite songs at their fingertips, it sometimes serves as a promotional vehicle,” said Samantha Lott, a third-year student at the University of Maine.
When Napster, the brainchild of Shawn Fanning, became popular the world’s largest record labels combined their efforts to stop the service from costing them millions of dollars. The record labels said with such a service available to the world they would lose billions of dollars.
In late 1999, these labels finally sued Napster. The original claims against the company demanded the service be permanently shut down. In July 2000, an appeals court ordered the claim be modified so measures taken against the Napster would not be so drastic.
On Monday, Feb. 12, the U.S. Circuit of Appeals said the original injunction against Napster was “overbroad” and the site may continue swapping songs. However, this ruling by a three-judge panel said the original judge must write a new injunction saying Napster must stop allowing its users to swap copyrighted material.
“Napster may be held liable for contributory copyright infringement only to the extent that Napster knows of specific infringing files,” the court wrote.
The entire burden is not on Napster, however. Recordings must warn the server their work is copyrighted.
In the long run there are a few instances in which Napster could be forced to pay. The first is if the record labels can prove that the company knew of specific information on the system that should not have been distributed but did nothing to stop such distribution. Napster could also be found liable if they are found to have failed in blocking infringed material on their system.
Students who enjoy the music they find on Napster do not seem to care who is making money on the songs. They like the price of Napster just the way it is – free.
“If artists weren’t in it just for the money, they would support Napster and the widespread exposure that it gives them,” Jacquelyn Bertman, a first-year wildlife ecology major, said.
Napster’s defense has been planning what to do if the situation progresses and the company is shut down. If they lose, Napster may request a hearing in front of the entire Court of Appeals. Another option could find Napster petitioning the Supreme Court.
