This source is a declaration made by Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster, at the United States District Court. Mr. Fanning talks about how Napster was started and for what reasons. He briefly discusses some of the feedback that his work has gotten. He speaks about some common misconceptions of Napster that have occurred. He also talks about his personal experience with Napster and why he uses it. During the course of his statement he is obviously trying to put across the message that he believes Napster is a good thing and that it can coexist with record companies, whether they choose to believe so or not.
This is the only source I have with the creator’s thoughts on the subject. This declaration gives great insight to the beginnings of Napster, which I believe will be great for the introduction of my paper. This source also has some great information about Fanning’s personal usage of Napster and how Napster works. This is the only source of mine that goes into such detail, and considering this declaration was part of the District courts decision I believe that it is an instrumental part of the answer to my research question.
This report jumped out at me because Peter S. Fadar is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. That being said he was hired by Napster to complete research in relation to Napster and its effect on CD sales. He was also asked to give an assessment of Dr. E. Deborah Jay, Mr. Charles Robbins, and Mr. Michael Fine’s reports in relation to the same topic. This report obviously sides with Napster due to a possible conflict of interests, but I believe this is a good source because it gives a lot of information about Napster and it’s effects on music purchasing.
This report by one of our very own professors was one of Napster’s many defenses during the case. Although Napster was shut down in the end this report was instrumental to what case they had. Since my research question questions which actions lead to the demise of Napster I believe this source shows a part of the path that was traveled along the way to Napster’s termination. This source is the only one of its kind as far as my sources go, and it truly gives a greater insight into the Napster case.
This Tech Law Journal entry includes the requirements set forth by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel for Napster in order to stay up and running. Judge Patel touches on many different things that Napster must do including eleven bullet points that are essential to Napster’s survival. This entry shows the specific time frames with which Napster was supposed to work within after being informed of a file that was previously copyrighted. There were different time frames for different situations, all of which seem reasonable given the circumstances.
This source is important to my research question because I haven’t found any other source that gives the specific time line of each requirement. The journal entry also brings up some counterpoints to the requirements set forth by the court. These points brought up by the journal are the first of their kind that I have seen. This is yet another important source to my question because it goes into extreme detail about the requirements set forth for Napster.
This article found on Newswire puts a very positive spin on the opening arguments of the Napster case for Napster. This article mentions that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) hopes to put a quick and painless end to Napster and its MP3 file sharing. However Napster has brought up the VCR case from twenty years ago and if the Judge finds the Napster case to be similar to that case then the Recording Association of America could find itself quite unhappy. This article does not however state that it is going to be easy going for Napster from this point on in the trial. There is also some new material about some questions that were directed towards Napster’s attorney.
This article brings up a new wrinkle in the Napster case about the VCR trial that is more than twenty years old. It introduces yet another way that Napster is trying to escape the copyright infringement charges that Napster faces. Because my research question asks about the process with which Napster was terminated each attempt made by Napster to slip away is very important and this source is yet another example of just that by Napster.
This source is from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the statement is by Judge Robert R. Beezer. This outline of Beezer’s speech states specifically the offenses that Napster was found guilty. This source talks specifically of the ineptitude of Napster to complete the tasks given in previous court appearances. These ineptitudes have forced Judge Beezer shut down Napster until these problems have been ironed out. In this source Napster is sited claiming that they were wronged in many different ways, and each time Napster does this the Judge swiftly dismisses said wronging.
This source helps answer my research question by showing the decision made by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuits ruling was an important one in the Napster case. As it set the standards that Napster had to abide by before being allowed to regain its right to continue servicing the public with its services. This source affirmed all of the previous orders of all of the previous court appearances by confirming the modified preliminary injunction and the shut down order. This affirmation is obviously very important to the answering of my research question.
This source is a summary of the Napster case with a slightly biased view in favor of Napster. This is yet another good example of a source that takes a different angle at the case. This summary talks about the judges and their actions during the case and the main topics of conversation related to the case. The writer of this summary, Kenneth D. Crews, is a professor at the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. He gives great insight into the possibility that the judges had already made the decision to terminate Napster before the beginning of the trial.
My research question asks what lead to the termination of Napster and this summary by Kenneth D. Crews talks about exactly that, specifically in relation to the judges and their rulings throughout the case. This source talks about some of the same things as my other sources, but the writer does so in a completely different way and in a completely different tone, and in the end this source actually gives some completely different information.
This summary of the ruling that denied Napster’s motion to dismiss the case because of safe harbor includes some very important information to the case. This summary touches on Napster’s case for dismissal as well as why their plea was not upheld. The summary includes Napster’s major points as to why they believe their case falls under safe harbor. It also includes the courts rational as to why they did not side with Napster. The five main points that were touched upon were: transmission of material, automatic mechanical process, automatic response, copying of material, and modification of content.
This summary is important to my research question because safe harbor was one of Napster’s best defenses. This summary shows exactly why Napster was deemed a copyright infringement. Without this summary my research question would not be fully answered because safe harbor was a very large part of the Napster case. In the end, this summary is just another piece to the puzzle that was Napster’s demise.
This is Napster’s argument against a preliminary injunction. In this statement by Napster they talk about why they are not breaking any copyright laws and why they should not have a preliminary injunction placed on them. They talk about how consumers have an absolute right to transfer digital music for noncommercial purposes. They say that they have no liability in this case under the Supreme Courts decision in Sony. Napster declares “fair use” because of such things like sampling and space shifting. Napster even states that no injunction should be issued because doing so would violate their First Amendment rights of free speech.
This opposition brief made on behalf of Napster is very important to my research topic because it talks about many of the problems that the music industry had with Napster, but in this case these arguments are coming from a different point of view, Napster’s. The majority of my sources come from the music industries point of view and this source helps break up that trend by giving the other side of the story. I think that is very important because I don’t want to write a paper that comes off as biased in any way.
In this opening brief, the plaintiff makes it clear that there are many things that they believed Napster was doing incorrectly in accordance with copyright law. The general problems that were brought up in the opening statement included but were not limited to: distributing copyrighted materials, enabling and facilitating a way to copy copyrighted material as well as a way to find copyrighted material to copy, encouraging users to transmit copyrighted material. These opening remarks touch upon the basis of the argument against Napster.
These opening remarks for Preliminary Injunction touch upon the most important parts of the case against Napster. That being said, it is fairly obvious that these accusations are very important to my research question. Without knowing the case against Napster I would have no way to produce the actual reasons for Napster’s termination.
This report by the Recording Industry on Napster’s non-compliance gives a lot of evidence to the effect that Napster was not filtering plaintiff’s music like it was supposed to. This report focuses on five issues in accordance with Napster’s reluctance to follow the rules set forth. One, Napster has complained about plaintiff’s “non-compliance”, this is completely unfounded. Two, Napster chose the most lenient method of filtering on purpose. Three, Napster’s reported “over-filtering” is an unnecessary problem created by itself. Four, Napster is both a vicarious and contributory infringement offender. Five, Napster has breached its confidentiality agreement rights in accordance to the Courts Protective Order’s.
This source gives the precise information that my question needs to be answered. This was one of the most important pieces of the puzzle that ended Napster’s chance for survival. This information is key to my research because this is the exact information that was related to Napster’s demise. As it is stated at the end of this source, if “Napster continues to demonstrate its unwillingness to comply with the Court’s Order and to block access to the plaintiffs’ copyrighted material, then the Court will have to consider additional remedies”, other remedies most likely being termination.