Re: Napster problem

On Wed, May 24, 2000, Peter Borisenko <pedrodon[_at_]chat.ru> wrote:
>
> I`m russian student interested in Internet copyright law. I
> have a question concerning Napster problem. How does this issue
> correspond to such cases as Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,
> Inc. (464 U.S. 417 (1984)) & Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd.
> (847 F. 2d 255,261 (1988)).
>
> In both these cases courts decided that defendants couldn`t be sued
> for possible infringements of their software users, because the
> primary aim of their products was perfectly legal. Are these two
> desisions applicable to Napster case, and can Napster`s lawyer use
> these precedents to motivate their postion?

More interesting, Napster itself isn't a copying mechanism, AFAIC, it is a technology for pointing to copies of things -- an index, as it where. Copyright complaints against Napster itself are shaky IMO.

Rather different situation from the other Internet music case involving MP3.com, in which the plaintiff actually created copies of works, then made them accessible to users who could authenticate ownership of a copy of the work themselves.

IANAL, and I'm not particularly versed in the particulars of either the Napster or MP3.com cases. Corrections appreciated.

--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>         http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/
  Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.                       http://www.opensales.org/
   What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      Debian GNU/Linux rocks!
     http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/      K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org/
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595  DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0