A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc.: An Issue of Copyright Infringement

In the case of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., several record companies (including A&M Records, Inc.) filed a lawsuit against Napster, Inc. At the time of the lawsuit, Napster was an Internet service that facilitated the transfer of music files among its users. It was considered to be a peer-to-peer network, because it allowed files to be transmitted directly to from one user to another. The record companies involved in the case alleged that Napster was “liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement” (A&M Records, Inc., et al. v. Napster, Inc.) because its users were exchanging copyrighted audio files. Napster defended itself, arguing that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act exempt it from such a lawsuit.

In August 2000, the court determined that the exchange of music files by Napster did not constitute as fair use and that Napster did contribute to the infringement by providing a medium for peer-to-peer file transfer.

Napster appealed this initial ruling, allowing the case to be revisited in the Court of Appeals. While the appellate court agreed with the decision that Napster was facilitating copyright infringement, it emphasized another important aspect of the issue. This court determined that Napster could eventually be used in beneficial ways that would not infringe upon copyright laws. As a result of the lawsuit, Napster was forced to reconstruct its system in order to abide by the copyright laws set forth.

One may argue that fan creation is perhaps the same as A&M Records v. Napster. One can argue that fans who create stories or videos are borrowing and distributing intellectual property that does not originate from them or belongto them, the same as Napster. Rebecca Tushnet would disagree, "Fans acknowledgecopyright owner's legitimate economic interests, but maintain that theiractivities do not hurt and can even help revenues by authorized works,"(Tushnet 64). Fan practices are an expansion of an author's original art; itcannot replace the original canonical text. Napster, however, sought to replacethe method for distribution of art and as such was brought to court. Fanstransform the author's work, which is protected under the Fair Use clause.Napster merely retransmitted the original work which is why the program waseventually declared illegal.

Another aspect that Tushnet addresses in “Copyright Law, Fan Practices, and the Rights of the Author” is that of giving credit to the original artists. She argues that most fans are “sensitive to the interests of copyright owners” when creating fan fiction and making it available to the public (Tushnet 64). In fact, many fans even put a disclaimer on their works asking the copyright owner not to sue them. This truth regarding fan fiction, however, did not prove true in the 2001 copyright case, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. In this case Napster, a music file sharing company, was charged for copyright infringement. Napster was giving people access to free downloads of other artists’ music. Even more, Napster was not appropriately disclaiming their ownership of the products they were giving away. This particular aspect completely reverts away from exactly what usually keeps fan fiction authors away from copyright cases and added to the conviction of Napster of copyright infringement.



Tushnet, Rebecca. Fan Texts: From Aesthetic to Legal Judgments: “Copyright Law, Fan Practices, and the Rights of the Author.” (60-70)

A&M Records, Inc., et al. v. Napster, Inc. No. 00-16401 & 00-16403. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 8 Sept. 2000.