Search results
BEEZER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording, distribution and sale of copyrightedmusical compositions and sound recordings. The complaint alleges that Napster, Inc. ("Napster") is a contributory and vicarious copyright infringer.
District Court opinion. The record companies alleged both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement by Napster, and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in order to stop the exchange of the plaintiffs' songs on the service immediately.
People also ask
Why did A&M Records v Napster get a copyright injunction?
What is the difference between A&M Records & Napster?
What did a & M Records v Napster do?
Is A&M Records v Napster infringement?
Napster asserted that the service had legitimate purposes: sampling works in deciding whether to make a purchase; accessing works the users already owned (space-shifting); and receiving authorized distributions of copyrighted works. Plaintiffs alleged Napster was liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement as a
- 19KB
- 1
3. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896, 902 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (referring to defendant's internal documents that suggest there will be seventy-five million Napster users by the end of 2000). 4. See http://www.napster.com/company (last visited Oct. 9, 2001). 5. Napster, 114 F. Supp. 2d at 902. 6.
- Jennifer Gokenbach
- 2020
A&M RECORDS, INC. v. NAPSTER, INC. nores "red flags" indicating blatant copyright infringement. 144 Since Con-gress has expressly stated that an ISP does not have to search its system for infringing users, 145 an ISP may not know or have reason to know that its users are engaged in infringement.
A&M sued Napster, alleging that Napster was a contributory and vicarious copyright infringer. The trial court found there was a likelihood that Napster was liable and granted a preliminary injunction preventing Napster from facilitating the transfer of A&M’s copyrighted music without permission.
Apr 22, 2013 · Opinion Date: March 25, 2002. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction issued by the Federal District Court finding that the sharing of copyrighted files was not fair use and was not within other exemptions of copyright infringement created by the Audio Home Recording Act or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. View "A&M Records v.
