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.
The A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. case is cited several times throughout the Perfect 10 v. Google case and many of the decisions made in this case are vital to the outcome of the Google case. First of all, the District Court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion originated with the Napster case. Also, the Napster case is similar because they both stress copyright infringement and had trial de novo, or new trials with a different decision maker. For my paper, I can look at the examples from the Napster case which were cited in the Google case. Regardless of whether or not they support my thesis, I can analyze whether or not these aspects should be part of decision making in copyright.
Preliminary injunctive relief is available to a party that demonstrates either that they have "a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm" or "that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in its favor." These conditions were outlined in the Napster case and used as criteria in the Google case. In the Napster case, this meant that A&M Records had to show that Napster's program for file sharing could cause irreparable harm to their copyrighted works or that it at least tips the burden towards A&M Records to stop the infringement of the illegal downloading. In the Napster case, these conditions are very clear and seem to be a very necessary assessment to make in cases of copyright infringement.
These conditions were used in the Google case and according to the Court's decision, support Google's argument. This was because Perfect 10, in the Court's opinion, was unable to show either of these criteria. It does not seem to be that important of a criterion in the Google case, but the seemingly black and white use in the Napster case shows how important this type of analysis is in copyright infringement. Because it supports my thesis, it is important to show that the criterion is essential for keeping things fair under copyright. The Napster case shows that this analysis, which supports Google, is very well thought out and essential for Fair Use.