The district court’s holding that Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act does not excuse Napster from liability is correct and should be affirmed. This brief does not address or express a view regarding any issue in this case other than the AHRA issue. For purposes of addressing the AHRA issue, the United States assumes that the plaintiffs have made out an otherwise valid claim for contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement against Napster based on the use of Napster’s service and software by consumers to exchange computer files containing copyrighted musical works. The court should not be understood to suggest that every distribution of a copyrighted work, regardless of its scope or attendant circumstances, is necessarily an infringement of the statutory right of distribution. As noted above, unlike digital audio recording technology, analog recording technology has inherent limitations that make it substantially less useful for copying in general and serial copying in particular. For that reason, the Act does not require manufacturers of analog recording devices and media to make royalty payments or incorporate anti-serial copying circuitry.
Mots clés : peer to peer,napster,musique,copyright
Thème : Peer to peer
A propos de cette jurisprudence : juridiction : Court of appeals of the 9th circuit | Date : 8 septembre 2000 | Pays : Etats Unis
