Talk:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Napster Ruling
Sorry if some people may consider "Chilling effect" as not NPOV, but I believe it is the correct word. However, the section does warrant citations supporting claims such as "frequently cited". I remember it was a popular issue for debate at the time (2001), and the problem of "illegal hyperlinks" continues to echo in circles of digital law (nearly all cases against BitTorrent trackers with .torrent hyperlinks to copyrighted data hinge on this precedent, rather than the newer argument of intent and inducement of MGM v. Grokster) through to today.
[edit] Vicarious Infringement
The article somewhat implies that Napster was held liable for contributory infringement only, but both district court and court of appeals decisions hold Napster, Inc. liable for vicarious infringement as well. From the court of appeals decision:
"Our review of the record requires us to accept the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the vicarious copyright infringement claim. Napster’s failure to police the system’s “premises,” combined with a showing that Napster financially benefits from the continuing availability of infringing files on its system, leads to the imposition of vicarious liability. " http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/0/c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument 201.37.185.130 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
