31:
344:, in which the Supreme Court ruled that media copying technologies were acceptable if they were unlikely to cause widespread copyright infringement beyond the original user. Because of Napster's "actual, specific knowledge of direct infringement," and the unlikelihood of non-infringing uses of Napster, "e are compelled to make a clear distinction between the architecture of the Napster system and Napster's conduct in relation to the operational capacity of the system." Thus, the Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs'
2053:
2067:
210:, from other users' music libraries. Unlike many peer-to-peer services, however, Napster included a central server that indexed connected users and files available on their machines, creating a searchable list of music available across Napster's network. Napster's ease of use compared to other peer-to-peer services quickly made it a popular service for music enthusiasts to find and download digital song files for free.
252:, on the grounds that the plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success. She issued an injunction which immediately prohibited Napster: "from engaging in, or facilitating others in copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing plaintiffs' copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings, protected by either federal or state law, without express permission of the rights owner."
634:
304:, and even though Napster did not directly benefit financially from users' downloads (it did not charge for the service), "repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works, even if the copies are not offered for sale" could be considered a commercial use that requires authorization from copyright holders.
415:
and restricted other user activities beyond copyright infringement. While the Ninth
Circuit rejected this argument due to the lack of a fair use defense, it did order a stay of the original injunction and agreed that it was overbroad because "it places on Napster the entire burden of ensuring that no
389:
Napster also argued that the record companies waived their rights to copyright protection because they "hastened" the spread of MP3s on the
Internet and had their own plans to get into the digital market. The Ninth Circuit rejected Napster's claim that, by creating and providing digital files via the
364:
of potentially selling advertising space for a large population of users, and that
Napster's ability to patrol and enforce infringing usage was limited by the design of the system itself. The system was not designed to read the contents of MP3s or check for copyright ownership or permissions. Because
321:
Thus, the
Circuit Court rejected Napster's argument that file sharing by its users qualified for the fair use defense. Napster's claims that it enabled legal sampling, space shifting, and permissive distribution (some artists had consented to the presence of their songs on the Napster service) were
450:
precedent and took too narrow a view of fair use. The professors argued that the overbroad nature of the injunction threatened the development and deployment of any future peer-to-peer file-sharing network on the
Internet because it insisted on a restructuring that defeated peer-to-peer technology
432:
the case back to the
District Court for another trial in which Napster would be required to show that it could keep track of user activities on its network and restrict access to infringing material by its users. Napster was unable to comply and thus had to close down its service in July 2001. The
334:
The
District Court had ruled that the "law does not require knowledge of 'specific acts of infringement'" and rejected Napster's assertion that, because it could not distinguish between infringing and non-infringing files, it did not have knowledge of copyright infringement by its users. The Ninth
419:
Recognizing that
Napster's system simply indexed files with imperfect file names and did not automatically verify copyright ownership, the Circuit Court found that it was the plaintiffs' burden to notify Napster of any infringing files on the system, which Napster would then remove. But the court
455:
was erroneous because of
Napster's significant non-infringing uses and because not all unauthorized uses within the system were copyright infringement. They concluded: "If Plaintiffs want copyright law extended to allow the suppression of new technologies, they must make their case to Congress."
385:
clause (17 U.S.C. § 512), claiming that
Napster users only made allowable copies of files for their personal use, with no interest in wider distribution of unauthorized copies. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court's finding that downloading MP3 files is not covered by the Audio Home
284:
defense. The Circuit Court agreed with the District Court's "general analysis of Napster system uses" as well as with its analysis of the three types of fair use alleged by Napster, which were "sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing;
420:
also again noted that Napster must police the system within its means: "In crafting the injunction on remand, the district court should recognize that Napster's system does not currently appear to allow Napster access to users' MP3 files."
394:
to control online distribution, which Napster considered beyond the scope of the limited ownership rights provided by copyright. The court rejected this argument as well, finding that MP3s were the same works as those that appeared on
267:
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ordered a stay of the District Court's injunction, pending resolution. This allowed Napster to continue its operations until the rendering of a judgment at the end of the hearings. On the matter of
445:
filed on behalf of both sides of the dispute, one particularly critical brief filed by a consortium of eighteen copyright law professors at United States universities argued that the District Court misread the
2345:
2192:
213:
The legacy record industry immediately took action against what it believed to be unauthorized copying of its copyrighted musical works within the Napster service. The first suit was filed at the
2532:
2187:
640:
603:
289:, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists."
245:
433:
following year, Napster filed for bankruptcy and sold its assets to a third party. The owners of the service settled with songwriters and music publishers, agreeing to pay $ 26 million.
3071:
214:
165:
365:
of Napster's failure to police within its means combined with the financial interest factor, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding of vicarious infringement.
2620:
2403:
2119:
2930:
2516:
272:, the Circuit Court agreed with the District Court's determination that Napster users were likely engaging in direct infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights.
2719:
2427:
2380:
2340:
317:
Widespread wholesale transfer of plaintiffs' music negatively affected the market for CD sales and jeopardized the record industry's future in digital markets.
2743:
2671:
2596:
2508:
621:
616:
340:
2751:
256:
149:
41:
390:
Internet, the plaintiffs had granted Napster an "implied license" to enable the copying of music files. Finally, Napster argued that the plaintiffs were
322:
also rejected by the court. Furthermore, the court found that Napster could control the infringing behavior of the service's users, and therefore had a
2735:
2775:
408:
2815:
2112:
556:
2679:
2580:
481:
and is considered by many to be the sequel to the Napster case, addressing another technology that "outpaced the law." Over the next few years,
2938:
2492:
2155:
3076:
2855:
2588:
2272:
2105:
681:
2871:
2727:
2500:
307:
Creative works, such as the songs in question, are "closer to the core of intended copyright protection", thus favoring the plaintiffs.
386:
Recording Act because online file sharing could spread unauthorized copies much more quickly than older forms of analog tape trading.
2839:
180:
2034:
3081:
2572:
2460:
2329:
2994:
2759:
2663:
2647:
2556:
2363:
2962:
335:
Circuit upheld this conclusion, holding that Napster had "knowledge, both actual and constructive, of direct infringement."
2978:
2954:
2831:
2604:
2986:
2887:
2548:
2230:
2161:
576:(No. C 99-5183 MHP No. C 00-0074 MHP), United States District Court for the Northern District of California, via CNET.com
498:
473:
452:
345:
226:
161:
87:
Napster could be held liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, affirming the District Court holding.
399:, just in a different format, thus the plaintiffs had the ownership right to control the distribution of digital music.
2946:
2791:
2703:
2612:
2524:
2294:
2139:
2128:
478:
360:
claim, the Circuit Court determined that Napster stood to benefit financially from the infringing activity, due to the
2847:
2639:
1460:
1018:
917:
2334:
1574:
1443:
822:
489:
faced long legal battles, but their opponents have had little success in shutting down these services permanently.
378:
407:
Napster contended that the original District Court injunction shutting down its operations violated the company's
179:
served as the lead plaintiff, Napster was sued by 18 different record companies, all of which were members of the
3036:
2903:
2029:
1376:
1277:
2149:
1536:
1170:
2895:
2863:
2799:
2300:
889:
682:"Copyright and Peer-To-Peer Music File Sharing: The Napster Case and the Argument Against Legislative Reform"
184:
813:
416:'copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing' of plaintiffs' works occur on the system."
3002:
2970:
2323:
2311:
1696:
1175:
172:. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.
30:
187:
were included on the Circuit Court appeal, representing the interests of "all others similarly situated."
3049:
2484:
1691:
726:
2783:
1666:
1165:
795:
3031:
2879:
2288:
1749:
485:, another P2P technology, became the target of copyright scrutiny. Popular torrent trackers like the
153:
585:
572:
2305:
1544:
1526:
471:, many of which faced their own legal challenges over infringing behavior by their users. In 2005,
429:
374:
1878:
3086:
2386:
2317:
2180:
2165:
1919:
1706:
1195:
1180:
654:
2175:
1974:
1959:
280:
The Circuit Court dedicated much more of its opinion to Napster's attempted application of the
269:
249:
234:
685:
2807:
2655:
2256:
2240:
2225:
2220:
2215:
2078:
1671:
1349:
1160:
625:
482:
145:
741:
428:
To determine whether Napster should be permitted to continue functioning, the Circuit Court
2235:
1799:
1145:
412:
804:
8:
3042:
2468:
1954:
1094:
1011:
460:
357:
230:
2540:
2476:
1769:
1428:
1282:
1267:
1245:
989:
969:
922:
912:
771:
628:
301:
241:
2436:
2170:
2097:
1754:
1676:
1514:
1257:
1252:
1205:
1130:
1124:
964:
882:
382:
100:
3021:
2695:
2452:
2144:
1759:
1726:
1225:
1089:
1084:
1049:
854:
391:
237:
in order to stop the exchange of the plaintiffs' songs on the service immediately.
2922:
2823:
2711:
2564:
2444:
2008:
1981:
1969:
1949:
1883:
1861:
1841:
1836:
1816:
1681:
1661:
1656:
1559:
1519:
1230:
1155:
1079:
1064:
984:
667:
2687:
2085:
1893:
1811:
1400:
1366:
1317:
1302:
1074:
979:
959:
949:
859:
838:
361:
286:
176:
3065:
3026:
1939:
1898:
1784:
1764:
1736:
1686:
1651:
1625:
1620:
1613:
1564:
1504:
1344:
1334:
1292:
1215:
1210:
1140:
1099:
1023:
708:
442:
311:
199:
108:
2071:
1821:
1789:
1744:
1482:
1477:
1448:
1361:
1339:
1307:
1240:
1220:
1114:
1054:
1044:
996:
954:
932:
875:
323:
104:
2346:
WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act
2193:
Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States
1993:
1934:
1924:
1721:
1716:
1554:
1455:
1371:
1330:
1297:
1262:
1185:
1109:
1059:
974:
2188:
Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States
459:
A number of file-sharing networks surfaced in Napster's wake, including
2057:
1986:
1866:
1804:
1549:
1470:
1465:
1423:
1405:
1393:
1354:
1200:
1190:
1150:
1135:
1119:
1069:
1006:
1001:
486:
169:
742:
Brief Amicus Curiae of Copyright Law Professors in Support of Reversal
1964:
1929:
1871:
1846:
1711:
1608:
1596:
1581:
1569:
1497:
1415:
1388:
1272:
2052:
326:
to do so. Therefore, Napster did not have a valid fair use defense.
246:
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
215:
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2013:
1998:
1701:
1586:
1383:
927:
464:
293:
281:
203:
756:
310:
In some cases, wholesale copying of a work may be allowable, with
1903:
1851:
1831:
1779:
1591:
1509:
1325:
1287:
1235:
338:
The Ninth Circuit also held that Napster was not protected under
195:
157:
2003:
1856:
1601:
1492:
1487:
1433:
1104:
373:
In its defense against the injunction, Napster also cited the
1944:
1888:
1794:
1635:
1438:
937:
468:
233:
copyright infringement by Napster, and filed a motion for a
1826:
1774:
1630:
1028:
944:
3072:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases
745:, Consortium of 18 Copyright Law Professors (August 2000).
898:
207:
2931:
Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc.
641:
public domain material from this U.S government document
836:
720:
718:
647:
396:
2720:
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
2381:
Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act
2341:
Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
2127:
867:
2744:
Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.
2672:
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
2509:
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
617:
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
341:
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
152:
affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant,
2752:
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.
715:
257:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
150:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
42:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
733:
2736:Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.
144:, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th. Cir., 2001) was a landmark
3063:
2816:Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.
839:"Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement:
2680:Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
2581:American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
2939:Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World, Inc.
2776:Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l
2493:White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co.
763:
700:
2156:Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices
2113:
883:
451:itself. They also argued that the finding of
206:compressed digital music files, specifically
772:Pirate Bay Shutting Down; Are Torrents Dead?
329:
2856:Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
2501:Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States
2273:Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
837:Landes, William; Lichtman, Douglas (2003).
579:
202:. Napster provided a platform for users to
2872:Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
2728:American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.
2120:
2106:
890:
876:
709:Napster reaches settlement with publishers
660:
567:
565:
402:
29:
2840:Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.
858:
351:
220:
181:Recording Industry Association of America
2573:Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2035:History of the American legal profession
573:A&M Records, Inc. et. al. v. Napster
262:
2461:Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
2330:Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998
679:
601:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
562:
554:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
436:
52:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
3064:
2995:Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc.
2768:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
2664:Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates
2648:Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.
2557:Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A.
2364:Family Entertainment and Copyright Act
789:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
141:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
24:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
2963:RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc.
2101:
871:
748:
549:
547:
545:
543:
541:
539:
537:
535:
2979:Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC
2955:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
2832:Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
2605:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
596:
594:
533:
531:
529:
527:
525:
523:
521:
519:
517:
515:
3077:United States file sharing case law
2987:Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.
2888:Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
2760:Nunez v. Caribbean Int'l News Corp.
2621:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith
2549:MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
2231:International Copyright Act of 1891
499:MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
474:MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
296:required for the fair use defense:
198:was founded in 1999 by 18 year-old
13:
2947:Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena
2792:In re Aimster Copyright Litigation
2704:Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.
2613:Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
2525:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
2295:Copyright Remedy Clarification Act
2129:Copyright law of the United States
830:
609:
225:The record companies alleged both
183:(RIAA). Additionally, songwriters
14:
3098:
2848:Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.
2640:Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.
1019:Restitution and unjust enrichment
782:
727:Bracing for the Digital Crackdown
591:
586:List of RIAA member organizations
512:
368:
292:The court first considered these
2597:Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com
2589:Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands
2335:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
2066:
2065:
2051:
847:Journal of Economic Perspectives
670:, Cornell University Law School.
657:, Cornell University Law School.
632:
379:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
255:Napster appealed this ruling to
3037:Home Recording Rights Coalition
2030:History of the legal profession
757:You Say Napster, I Say Grokster
666:United States Code Collection,
653:United States Code Collection,
133:17 U.S.C. § 501, 17 U.S.C. §106
3082:2001 in United States case law
2150:United States Copyright Office
775:, PC Magazine (Nov. 17, 2009).
673:
1:
2896:Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
2864:Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.
2800:NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute
2301:Copyright Renewal Act of 1992
680:Douglas, Guy (July 9, 2010).
505:
377:(17 U.S.C. §§ 1001). and the
270:direct copyright infringement
190:
185:Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller
3003:Hachette v. Internet Archive
2971:Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.
2324:Copyright Term Extension Act
2312:Uruguay Round Agreements Act
7:
2485:Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus
492:
275:
160:, could be held liable for
10:
3103:
2784:Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.
1697:International legal theory
1176:International slavery laws
1171:International human rights
1166:International criminal law
860:10.1257/089533003765888467
639:This article incorporates
423:
300:Downloading an MP3 is not
3017:
2914:
2880:Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc
2631:
2426:
2417:
2396:
2373:
2356:
2289:Visual Artists Rights Act
2281:
2265:
2249:
2208:
2201:
2135:
2045:
2022:
1912:
1750:Administration of justice
1735:
1644:
1535:
1414:
1316:
1037:
905:
346:contributory infringement
330:Contributory infringement
162:contributory infringement
154:peer-to-peer file sharing
132:
127:
119:
114:
96:
91:
86:
81:
73:
65:
57:
47:
37:
28:
23:
3050:You Wouldn't Steal a Car
2306:Audio Home Recording Act
1527:Basic structure doctrine
1377:Natural and legal rights
1258:Public international law
760:, Slate (Dec. 14, 2004).
739:Jessica Litman, et al.,
730:, Wired (Aug. 22, 2002).
712:, CNET (Sept. 24, 2001).
375:Audio Home Recording Act
2387:Music Modernization Act
2318:No Electronic Theft Act
2181:Section 108 Study Group
1707:Principle of typicality
1181:International trade law
897:
403:Scope of the injunction
348:claim against Napster.
3032:Don't Copy That Floppy
2787:(9th Cir. 2002 / 2003)
2533:Quality King v. L'anza
2176:Register of Copyrights
453:contributory liability
411:rights because it was
392:misusing copyright law
358:vicarious infringement
352:Vicarious infringement
250:preliminary injunction
235:preliminary injunction
221:District Court opinion
166:vicarious infringement
2808:BMG Music v. Gonzalez
2656:Eltra Corp. v. Ringer
2257:Copyright Act of 1976
2241:Copyright Act of 1909
2226:Copyright Act of 1870
2221:Copyright Act of 1831
2216:Copyright Act of 1790
1702:Principle of legality
1461:Delegated legislation
1161:Intellectual property
263:Circuit Court opinion
146:intellectual property
2236:Printing Act of 1895
1920:Barristers' chambers
1862:Legal representation
1800:Justice of the peace
1146:Financial regulation
655:17 U.S.C. §§ 1001-10
437:Criticism and impact
3043:Nimmer on Copyright
2926:(C.C.D. Mass. 1841)
2469:Banks v. Manchester
1955:Election commission
1667:Expressive function
1196:Landlord–tenant law
1095:Consumer protection
2541:Eldred v. Ashcroft
2477:Callaghan v. Myers
1913:Legal institutions
1780:Lawsuit/Litigation
1770:Dispute resolution
1575:Catholic canon law
1283:State of emergency
1246:Will and testament
970:Law of obligations
923:Constitutional law
913:Administrative law
791:is available from:
606:(N.D. Cal., 2000).
559:(9th. Cir., 2001).
441:Among a number of
242:Marilyn Hall Patel
148:case in which the
3059:
3058:
3013:
3012:
2966:(W.D. Wash. 2000)
2437:Wheaton v. Peters
2413:
2412:
2171:Copyright Catalog
2095:
2094:
1755:Constitutionalism
1677:Law and economics
1515:Act of parliament
1253:Product liability
1206:Legal archaeology
1131:Environmental law
1125:Entertainment law
965:International law
604:114 F.Supp.2d 896
137:
136:
101:Mary M. Schroeder
3094:
3022:Berne Convention
2998:(C.D. Cal. 2015)
2950:(M.D. Fla. 1993)
2942:(N.D. Cal. 1986)
2904:Naruto v. Slater
2696:Whelan v. Jaslow
2453:Trade-Mark Cases
2424:
2423:
2206:
2205:
2145:Copyright Clause
2122:
2115:
2108:
2099:
2098:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2056:
2055:
1879:Question of fact
1760:Criminal justice
1090:Construction law
1085:Conflict of laws
1050:Agricultural law
892:
885:
878:
869:
868:
864:
862:
827:
821:
818:
812:
809:
803:
800:
794:
776:
767:
761:
752:
746:
737:
731:
722:
713:
704:
698:
697:
695:
693:
684:. Archived from
677:
671:
664:
658:
651:
645:
636:
635:
613:
607:
598:
589:
583:
577:
569:
560:
551:
92:Court membership
69:February 12 2001
33:
21:
20:
3102:
3101:
3097:
3096:
3095:
3093:
3092:
3091:
3087:A&M Records
3062:
3061:
3060:
3055:
3009:
3006:(S.D.N.Y. 2023)
2990:(S.D.N.Y. 2013)
2982:(S.D.N.Y. 2010)
2974:(S.D.N.Y. 2005)
2958:(S.D.N.Y. 1999)
2934:(E.D.N.Y. 1973)
2923:Folsom v. Marsh
2910:
2907:(9th Cir. 2018)
2899:(9th Cir. 2015)
2883:(9th Cir. 2013)
2867:(9th Cir. 2012)
2851:(9th Cir. 2010)
2843:(2nd Cir. 2008)
2835:(9th Cir. 2006)
2827:(2nd Cir. 2006)
2824:Blanch v. Koons
2819:(2nd Cir. 2006)
2811:(7th Cir. 2005)
2795:(7th Cir. 2003)
2779:(5th Cir. 2002)
2771:(9th Cir. 2001)
2763:(1st Cir. 2000)
2755:(9th Cir. 2000)
2739:(9th Cir. 1997)
2731:(2nd Cir. 1995)
2715:(2nd Cir. 1992)
2712:Rogers v. Koons
2707:(5th Cir. 1988)
2691:(9th Cir. 1986)
2675:(7th Cir. 1983)
2667:(9th Cir. 1978)
2659:(4th Cir. 1978)
2651:(9th Cir. 1970)
2627:
2565:Golan v. Holder
2445:Baker v. Selden
2419:
2409:
2392:
2369:
2352:
2277:
2261:
2245:
2197:
2131:
2126:
2096:
2091:
2064:
2050:
2041:
2018:
2009:Political party
1982:Legal education
1970:Law enforcement
1950:Court of equity
1908:
1884:Question of law
1837:Practice of law
1817:Judicial review
1731:
1682:Legal formalism
1662:Comparative law
1657:Contract theory
1640:
1560:Legal pluralism
1531:
1520:Act of Congress
1444:Executive order
1410:
1312:
1231:Nationality law
1156:Immigration law
1080:Competition law
1033:
901:
896:
833:
831:Further reading
825:
819:
816:
810:
807:
801:
798:
792:
785:
780:
779:
768:
764:
753:
749:
738:
734:
723:
716:
705:
701:
691:
689:
688:on July 9, 2010
678:
674:
668:17 U.S.C. § 512
665:
661:
652:
648:
633:
614:
610:
599:
592:
584:
580:
570:
563:
552:
513:
508:
495:
439:
426:
409:First Amendment
405:
371:
362:network effects
356:Addressing the
354:
332:
278:
265:
223:
193:
177:A&M Records
17:
12:
11:
5:
3100:
3090:
3089:
3084:
3079:
3074:
3057:
3056:
3054:
3053:
3046:
3039:
3034:
3029:
3024:
3018:
3015:
3014:
3011:
3010:
3008:
3007:
2999:
2991:
2983:
2975:
2967:
2959:
2951:
2943:
2935:
2927:
2918:
2916:
2912:
2911:
2909:
2908:
2900:
2892:
2891:(2d Cir. 2015)
2884:
2876:
2875:(2d Cir. 2012)
2868:
2860:
2859:(2d Cir. 2011)
2852:
2844:
2836:
2828:
2820:
2812:
2804:
2803:(2d Cir. 2004)
2796:
2788:
2780:
2772:
2764:
2756:
2748:
2747:(2d Cir. 1998)
2740:
2732:
2724:
2723:(2d Cir. 1992)
2716:
2708:
2700:
2699:(3d Cir. 1986)
2692:
2688:Fisher v. Dees
2684:
2683:(3d Cir. 1983)
2676:
2668:
2660:
2652:
2644:
2643:(2d Cir. 1964)
2635:
2633:
2632:Appeals courts
2629:
2628:
2626:
2625:
2617:
2609:
2601:
2593:
2585:
2577:
2569:
2561:
2553:
2545:
2537:
2529:
2521:
2517:Feist v. Rural
2513:
2505:
2497:
2489:
2481:
2473:
2465:
2457:
2449:
2441:
2432:
2430:
2421:
2415:
2414:
2411:
2410:
2408:
2407:
2400:
2398:
2394:
2393:
2391:
2390:
2384:
2377:
2375:
2371:
2370:
2368:
2367:
2360:
2358:
2354:
2353:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2343:
2332:
2327:
2321:
2315:
2309:
2303:
2298:
2292:
2285:
2283:
2279:
2278:
2276:
2275:
2269:
2267:
2263:
2262:
2260:
2259:
2253:
2251:
2247:
2246:
2244:
2243:
2238:
2233:
2228:
2223:
2218:
2212:
2210:
2203:
2199:
2198:
2196:
2195:
2190:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2178:
2173:
2168:
2159:
2147:
2142:
2136:
2133:
2132:
2125:
2124:
2117:
2110:
2102:
2093:
2092:
2090:
2089:
2082:
2075:
2061:
2058:Law portal
2046:
2043:
2042:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2026:
2024:
2020:
2019:
2017:
2016:
2011:
2006:
2001:
1996:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1952:
1947:
1942:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1916:
1914:
1910:
1909:
1907:
1906:
1901:
1896:
1894:Trial advocacy
1891:
1886:
1881:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1859:
1854:
1849:
1844:
1834:
1829:
1824:
1819:
1814:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1802:
1792:
1787:
1782:
1777:
1772:
1767:
1762:
1757:
1752:
1747:
1741:
1739:
1733:
1732:
1730:
1729:
1724:
1719:
1714:
1709:
1704:
1699:
1694:
1689:
1684:
1679:
1674:
1669:
1664:
1659:
1654:
1648:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1639:
1638:
1633:
1628:
1623:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1599:
1594:
1589:
1584:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1562:
1557:
1552:
1547:
1541:
1539:
1533:
1532:
1530:
1529:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1517:
1512:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1490:
1485:
1480:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1446:
1441:
1431:
1426:
1424:Ballot measure
1420:
1418:
1412:
1411:
1409:
1408:
1403:
1401:Legal treatise
1398:
1397:
1396:
1391:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1369:
1367:Letters patent
1364:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1347:
1342:
1337:
1328:
1322:
1320:
1318:Sources of law
1314:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1303:Unenforced law
1300:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1075:Commercial law
1072:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1047:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1004:
999:
994:
993:
992:
987:
977:
972:
967:
962:
957:
952:
947:
942:
941:
940:
930:
925:
920:
915:
909:
907:
903:
902:
895:
894:
887:
880:
872:
866:
865:
853:(2): 113–124.
832:
829:
784:
783:External links
781:
778:
777:
769:Brian Heater,
762:
747:
732:
714:
706:John Borland,
699:
672:
659:
646:
608:
590:
578:
561:
510:
509:
507:
504:
494:
491:
477:, went to the
438:
435:
425:
422:
404:
401:
370:
369:Other defenses
367:
353:
350:
331:
328:
319:
318:
315:
314:as an example.
308:
305:
302:transformative
287:space shifting
277:
274:
264:
261:
222:
219:
192:
189:
135:
134:
130:
129:
125:
124:
121:
117:
116:
112:
111:
98:
97:Judges sitting
94:
93:
89:
88:
84:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
61:October 2 2000
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3099:
3088:
3085:
3083:
3080:
3078:
3075:
3073:
3070:
3069:
3067:
3051:
3047:
3045:
3044:
3040:
3038:
3035:
3033:
3030:
3028:
3027:Uruguay Round
3025:
3023:
3020:
3019:
3016:
3005:
3004:
3000:
2997:
2996:
2992:
2989:
2988:
2984:
2981:
2980:
2976:
2973:
2972:
2968:
2965:
2964:
2960:
2957:
2956:
2952:
2949:
2948:
2944:
2941:
2940:
2936:
2933:
2932:
2928:
2925:
2924:
2920:
2919:
2917:
2913:
2906:
2905:
2901:
2898:
2897:
2893:
2890:
2889:
2885:
2882:
2881:
2877:
2874:
2873:
2869:
2866:
2865:
2861:
2858:
2857:
2853:
2850:
2849:
2845:
2842:
2841:
2837:
2834:
2833:
2829:
2826:
2825:
2821:
2818:
2817:
2813:
2810:
2809:
2805:
2802:
2801:
2797:
2794:
2793:
2789:
2786:
2785:
2781:
2778:
2777:
2773:
2770:
2769:
2765:
2762:
2761:
2757:
2754:
2753:
2749:
2746:
2745:
2741:
2738:
2737:
2733:
2730:
2729:
2725:
2722:
2721:
2717:
2714:
2713:
2709:
2706:
2705:
2701:
2698:
2697:
2693:
2690:
2689:
2685:
2682:
2681:
2677:
2674:
2673:
2669:
2666:
2665:
2661:
2658:
2657:
2653:
2650:
2649:
2645:
2642:
2641:
2637:
2636:
2634:
2630:
2623:
2622:
2618:
2615:
2614:
2610:
2607:
2606:
2602:
2599:
2598:
2594:
2591:
2590:
2586:
2583:
2582:
2578:
2575:
2574:
2570:
2567:
2566:
2562:
2559:
2558:
2554:
2551:
2550:
2546:
2543:
2542:
2538:
2535:
2534:
2530:
2527:
2526:
2522:
2519:
2518:
2514:
2511:
2510:
2506:
2503:
2502:
2498:
2495:
2494:
2490:
2487:
2486:
2482:
2479:
2478:
2474:
2471:
2470:
2466:
2463:
2462:
2458:
2455:
2454:
2450:
2447:
2446:
2442:
2439:
2438:
2434:
2433:
2431:
2429:
2428:Supreme Court
2425:
2422:
2416:
2405:
2402:
2401:
2399:
2395:
2388:
2385:
2382:
2379:
2378:
2376:
2372:
2365:
2362:
2361:
2359:
2355:
2347:
2344:
2342:
2339:
2338:
2336:
2333:
2331:
2328:
2325:
2322:
2319:
2316:
2313:
2310:
2307:
2304:
2302:
2299:
2296:
2293:
2290:
2287:
2286:
2284:
2280:
2274:
2271:
2270:
2268:
2264:
2258:
2255:
2254:
2252:
2248:
2242:
2239:
2237:
2234:
2232:
2229:
2227:
2224:
2222:
2219:
2217:
2214:
2213:
2211:
2207:
2204:
2200:
2194:
2191:
2189:
2186:
2182:
2179:
2177:
2174:
2172:
2169:
2167:
2164: →
2163:
2160:
2158:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2148:
2146:
2143:
2141:
2138:
2137:
2134:
2130:
2123:
2118:
2116:
2111:
2109:
2104:
2103:
2100:
2088:
2087:
2083:
2081:
2080:
2076:
2074:
2073:
2062:
2060:
2059:
2054:
2048:
2047:
2044:
2036:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2028:
2027:
2025:
2021:
2015:
2012:
2010:
2007:
2005:
2002:
2000:
1997:
1995:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1980:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1963:
1961:
1958:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1946:
1943:
1941:
1940:Civil society
1938:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1928:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1917:
1915:
1911:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1899:Trier of fact
1897:
1895:
1892:
1890:
1887:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1877:
1873:
1870:
1868:
1865:
1863:
1860:
1858:
1855:
1853:
1850:
1848:
1845:
1843:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1835:
1833:
1830:
1828:
1825:
1823:
1820:
1818:
1815:
1813:
1810:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1785:Legal opinion
1783:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1771:
1768:
1766:
1765:Court-martial
1763:
1761:
1758:
1756:
1753:
1751:
1748:
1746:
1743:
1742:
1740:
1738:
1737:Jurisprudence
1734:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1713:
1710:
1708:
1705:
1703:
1700:
1698:
1695:
1693:
1690:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1680:
1678:
1675:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1665:
1663:
1660:
1658:
1655:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1647:
1643:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1626:Statutory law
1624:
1622:
1621:Socialist law
1619:
1615:
1614:Byzantine law
1612:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1603:
1600:
1598:
1595:
1593:
1590:
1588:
1585:
1583:
1580:
1576:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:Religious law
1563:
1561:
1558:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1540:
1538:
1537:Legal systems
1534:
1528:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:Statutory law
1503:
1499:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1491:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1481:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1419:
1417:
1413:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1365:
1363:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1343:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1335:Statutory law
1332:
1329:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1321:
1319:
1315:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1293:Transport law
1291:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1211:Legal fiction
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1141:Financial law
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1100:Corporate law
1098:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1030:
1027:
1025:
1024:Statutory law
1022:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
991:
988:
986:
983:
982:
981:
978:
976:
973:
971:
968:
966:
963:
961:
958:
956:
953:
951:
948:
946:
943:
939:
936:
935:
934:
931:
929:
926:
924:
921:
919:
916:
914:
911:
910:
908:
906:Core subjects
904:
900:
893:
888:
886:
881:
879:
874:
873:
870:
861:
856:
852:
848:
844:
842:
835:
834:
828:
824:
815:
806:
797:
796:CourtListener
790:
774:
773:
766:
759:
758:
751:
744:
743:
736:
729:
728:
721:
719:
711:
710:
703:
692:September 26,
687:
683:
676:
669:
663:
656:
650:
644:
642:
631: (1984).
630:
627:
623:
619:
618:
612:
605:
602:
597:
595:
587:
582:
575:
574:
568:
566:
558:
557:239 F.3d 1004
555:
550:
548:
546:
544:
542:
540:
538:
536:
534:
532:
530:
528:
526:
524:
522:
520:
518:
516:
511:
503:
501:
500:
490:
488:
484:
480:
479:Supreme Court
476:
475:
470:
466:
462:
457:
454:
449:
444:
443:amicus briefs
434:
431:
421:
417:
414:
410:
400:
398:
393:
387:
384:
380:
376:
366:
363:
359:
349:
347:
343:
342:
336:
327:
325:
316:
313:
312:time shifting
309:
306:
303:
299:
298:
297:
295:
290:
288:
283:
273:
271:
260:
258:
253:
251:
247:
243:
238:
236:
232:
228:
218:
216:
211:
209:
205:
201:
200:Shawn Fanning
197:
188:
186:
182:
178:
173:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
142:
131:
126:
123:Robert Beezer
122:
118:
115:Case opinions
113:
110:
109:Robert Beezer
106:
102:
99:
95:
90:
85:
80:
77:239 F.3d 1004
76:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
16:US legal case
3041:
3001:
2993:
2985:
2977:
2969:
2961:
2953:
2945:
2937:
2929:
2921:
2915:Lower courts
2902:
2894:
2886:
2878:
2870:
2862:
2854:
2846:
2838:
2830:
2822:
2814:
2806:
2798:
2790:
2782:
2774:
2767:
2766:
2758:
2750:
2742:
2734:
2726:
2718:
2710:
2702:
2694:
2686:
2678:
2670:
2662:
2654:
2646:
2638:
2619:
2611:
2603:
2595:
2587:
2579:
2571:
2563:
2555:
2547:
2539:
2531:
2523:
2515:
2507:
2499:
2491:
2483:
2475:
2467:
2459:
2451:
2443:
2435:
2154:
2084:
2077:
2063:
2049:
1822:Jurisdiction
1790:Legal remedy
1745:Adjudication
1645:Legal theory
1483:Ratification
1478:Promulgation
1449:Proclamation
1429:Codification
1362:Human rights
1350:Divine right
1340:Constitution
1308:Women in law
1226:Military law
1221:Marriage law
1216:Maritime law
1115:Election law
1055:Aviation law
1045:Abortion law
997:Property law
933:Criminal law
850:
846:
840:
823:resource.org
788:
786:
770:
765:
755:
754:Rod Smolla,
750:
740:
735:
725:
707:
702:
690:. Retrieved
686:the original
675:
662:
649:
638:
615:
611:
600:
581:
571:
553:
497:
496:
472:
458:
447:
440:
427:
418:
406:
388:
372:
355:
339:
337:
333:
320:
294:four factors
291:
279:
266:
254:
248:granted the
239:
227:contributory
224:
212:
194:
174:
140:
139:
138:
128:Laws applied
105:Richard Paez
51:
18:
2420:and rulings
1994:Legislature
1925:Bureaucracy
1722:Rule of man
1717:Rule of law
1692:Libertarian
1555:Chinese law
1456:Legislation
1406:Regulations
1394:Law reports
1372:Natural law
1268:Reparations
1263:Refugee law
1186:Jurimetrics
1127:(Media law)
1065:Banking law
1060:Amnesty law
1038:Disciplines
975:Private law
843:and Beyond"
724:Brad King,
383:safe harbor
3066:Categories
2418:Precedents
1987:Law school
1867:Prosecutor
1805:Magistrate
1592:Jewish law
1550:Common law
1471:Rulemaking
1466:Regulation
1416:Law making
1355:Divine law
1331:Legal code
1278:Sports law
1201:Law of war
1151:Health law
1136:Family law
1120:Energy law
1070:Bankruptcy
1007:Punishment
1002:Public law
588:, RIAA.com
506:References
487:Pirate Bay
483:BitTorrent
191:Background
2140:17 U.S.C.
1965:Judiciary
1960:Executive
1935:The bench
1872:Solicitor
1847:Barrister
1727:Sociology
1712:Pseudolaw
1652:Anarchist
1609:Roman law
1597:Parsi law
1582:Hindu law
1570:Canon law
1545:Civil law
1498:Concordat
1389:Precedent
1298:Trust law
1273:Space law
1110:Drugs law
980:Procedure
918:Civil law
413:overbroad
231:vicarious
170:copyright
2404:CASE Act
2209:Pre-1976
2202:Statutes
2072:Category
2014:Tribunal
1999:Military
1842:Attorney
1812:Judgment
1672:Feminist
1587:Jain law
1384:Case law
1105:Cyberlaw
1012:Corporal
990:Criminal
960:Evidence
950:Doctrine
928:Contract
787:Text of
502:(2005).
493:See also
465:Grokster
461:Morpheus
430:remanded
282:fair use
276:Fair use
204:download
156:service
120:Majority
74:Citation
2337:(1998)
2086:Outline
2023:History
1930:The bar
1904:Verdict
1852:Counsel
1832:Justice
1687:History
1510:Statute
1326:Charter
1288:Tax law
1236:Probate
841:Napster
805:Findlaw
424:Outcome
244:of the
196:Napster
158:Napster
82:Holding
66:Decided
2624:(2023)
2616:(2021)
2608:(2020)
2600:(2019)
2592:(2017)
2584:(2014)
2576:(2013)
2568:(2012)
2560:(2010)
2552:(2005)
2544:(2003)
2536:(1998)
2528:(1994)
2520:(1991)
2512:(1984)
2504:(1975)
2496:(1908)
2488:(1908)
2480:(1888)
2472:(1888)
2464:(1884)
2456:(1879)
2448:(1879)
2440:(1834)
2406:(2020)
2389:(2018)
2383:(2014)
2366:(2005)
2326:(1998)
2320:(1994)
2314:(1994)
2308:(1992)
2297:(1990)
2291:(1990)
2004:Police
1975:Agency
1857:Lawyer
1602:Sharia
1493:Treaty
1488:Repeal
1434:Decree
1345:Custom
1241:Estate
1191:Labour
955:Equity
826:
820:
817:
814:Justia
811:
808:
802:
799:
793:
637:
620:,
467:, and
240:Judge
175:While
58:Argued
2397:2020s
2374:2010s
2357:2000s
2282:1990s
2266:1980s
2250:1970s
2079:Index
1945:Court
1889:Trial
1795:Judge
1636:Yassa
1439:Edict
985:Civil
938:Crime
624:
469:KaZaA
38:Court
2162:CARP
1827:Jury
1775:Fiqh
1631:Xeer
1029:Tort
945:Deed
694:2022
626:U.S.
448:Sony
324:duty
229:and
208:MP3s
164:and
2166:CRB
899:Law
855:doi
629:417
622:464
397:CDs
381:'s
168:of
3068::
1333:/
851:17
849:.
845:.
717:^
593:^
564:^
514:^
463:,
259:.
217:.
107:,
103:,
3052:"
3048:"
2121:e
2114:t
2107:v
891:e
884:t
877:v
863:.
857::
696:.
643:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
