The Landmark Intellectual Property Case Essays

The Landmark Intellectual Property Case Essays The Landmark Intellectual Property Case Essay The Landmark Intellectual Property Case Essay Essay Topic: Left To Tell This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file-sharing. Introduction Plaintiffs 1. Aamp;M Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group 2. Geffen Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group 3. Interscope Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group 4. Sony Music Entertainment 5. MCA Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group 6. Atlantic Records, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group 7. Island Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group . Motown Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group 9. Capitol Records, a subsidiary of EMI 10. LaFace Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment 11. BMG Music d/b/a The RCA Records Label, subsidiaries of Sony Music Entertainment 12. Universal Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group 13. Elektra Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group 14. Arista Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment 15. Sire Records Group, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group 16. Polygram Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group 17.Virgin Records America, a subsidiary of EMI 18. Warner Bros. Records, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Defendant Napster, it provided a platform for users to access and download compressed digital music files, specifically MP3s, from other users machines. Legal Issues In 2000, Aamp;M Records along with 18 other record companies sued Napster. Under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Aamp;M accused Napster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Rules amp; Principles Audio Home Recording Act Congress enacted the AHRA in 1992 in response to the advent of digital audio ape recording equipment and supplies entering the American market. The law imposed monetary duties on the equipment and supplies, but in exchange permitted noncommercial users to be protected from copyright infringement liability when they make copies of digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. The court swiftly dismissed any argument that these protections could apply to the copies of MP3 files that Napster users make when they download files to their computers. The AHRA applies to the use of a digital audio recording device. Such a device may well include a computer, but the definition in the Copyright Act specifies about the device: the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use. The court ruled that a computer and its hard drives do not have their primary purpose of making audio recordings. Moreover, the court- with no scrutiny of the statutory language- ruled that the sounds saved to a computer drive are not within the statutory definition of a digital music recording.Digital Millennium Copyright Act Congress enacted the DMCA in October 1998, and it is a lengthy and complex bill addressing numerous issues of copyright law and making many fundamental changes in the Copyright Act. One of those changes was the addition of provisions offering a safe harbor from liability for online serve providers that provide access to computer network systems on which a user may ultimately commit a copyright infringement. The DMCA holds the possibility of protecting Napster itself from liability for the infringements committed by its users.The appeals court agreed with Napster that the DMCA provisions could conceivably apply in this case. But the court outlined a series of questions that remained unresolved with respect to the parties’ compliance with the specific procedures in the code and whether Napster itself is a service provider within the meaning of the statute. The appeals court left these questions for the lower court to resolve at trial- should this case ever actually go to trial.With simple words Aamp;M accused Napster not of violating copyright itself, but of contributing to and facilitating other people’s infringement. Argument (Fair Use) The determination of whether or not an activity is within fair use depends on an application and balancing of four factors outlined in Section 107 of the Copyright Act: 1. The purpose of the use 2. The nature of the work being used 3. The amount of the work used 4. The effect of the use on the market for or value of the original work.Purpose of the Use The court found two reasons for determining that this factor does not favor fair use: the use of the music is not transformative, and the users of Napster stood to gain a commercial benefit which was found in repeated and exploitative copying the works, even if they are not offered for sale. In both instances, the analysis is weak and often flawed, but the court gave little hint that regardless of any adjustments in its approach it might be more sympathetic to the users.Nature of the Original Work The court ruled that because more creative works receive greater protection than fact-based works, and because the music al compositions and recordings are creative in nature, this second factor weighs against fair use. In light of a long series of recent court rulings reinforcing this premise, the court found little flexibility. The court held that this factor made little or no difference in the analysis, because a parody is possible of any type of work. Amount of the Work UseThe court found that Napster users engage in wholesale copying of entire works, which weighed against fair use. Effect on the Market The appeals court held that the use of Napster results in at least two forms of harm to the music industry: 1. The loss of sales of compact disks. 2. A heightened barrier to entry by the music industry into the market for electronic delivery of music. The court noted that market harm could include not merely damage to the present market, but also to future markets that the copyright owner may seek to exploit.Overall, the court gave little room for Napster to make a credible claim of fair use, havin g found rather summarily that all four of the factors weigh against fair use and in favor of infringement. Conclusion Napster still exists, but it operates under a new structure and new policy. Today Napster’s operations are both legal and ethical. To sum up with, I believe that Fanning’s idea for creating this software was innovative and highly creative.However it lacked the legal and ethical base it should have in order to successfully protect intellectual property rights of creators. Finally, I consider that Napster, as it functions today, not only protest these rights, but also promotes music itself and music industry since it gives the chance to users to listen numerous music samples which later, they can buy. At the same time they can access to older or rare songs that can’t be easily found. The important thing is that intellectual property rights of creators are respected and protected by all means, as they should.