Digital Millennium Recording Act and Napster

Lab Report 

How did Napster try to defend itself against RIAA’s claims? 

The DMCA Act that pushed itself through the music industry made Napster believes that it was protected from infringement. The act protected songwriters, artists, and movie directors. Additionally, it offered protection from ISPs from being liable for sharing files to users. 

What does contributory infringement of copyright mean and how did this affect Napster? 

Contributory infringement is any deliberate action that contributes to infringement of copyright. For Napster’s case, the court ruled out that it had no knowledge of such a crime to prevent the copyright violation. 

What does material contribution mean and how did this affect Napster? 

Material contribution includes digitally transferable and physical materials that can be shared among users. Material contribution affected Napster in its use of peer to peer sharing with customers. The sharing made it possible for customers to share movies and music to hard drives leading to infringement of copyrighted material. 

What was the court’s decision about the case? What became of Napster? 

Following the infringement of copyrighted material and given the ruling that they did not have knowledge of infringement, the court asked the company to stop the peer to peer sharing. The court further gave the company a few days to comply. Unfortunately, Napster could not meet the deadline that was forced to close its service permanently. 

Lab Assessment Questions & Answers 

Question One 

By allowing peer to peer sharing among customers, Napster violated copyrighted laws by allowing customers to download music and videos illegally. Thus, the suit was about control and damages. 

Question Two 

Yes, I would still be considered to have infringed the rights of musicians or the record company. Moreover, I would have gained the material without monetary cost. 

Question Three 

The act mainly prevents the creation and use of software that makes it possible for users to bypass copyright laws. The act makes it difficult to bypass anti-piracy and software protection. It protects internet service providers being held liable for infringement to copyright. The act also allows archives, educational institution and nonprofit libraries to bypass the copyright laws. 

Question Four 

Napster was being sued under the Digital Millennium Recording Act. Napster argued that it was protected under section 512 (a) of the act that protected service providers for sharing material. 

Question Five 

The plaintiffs’ copyrights were being violated by Napster users. The legal implications are the stealing of intellectual property and copyright infringement. 

Question Six 

Ethical concerns that arose were the intentions of Napster to gain profits by infringing copyright works of other individuals. 

Question Seven 

There are several security implications of Napster services to its users which include exposure to viruses and malware, sharing of files without owner’s authority, and increase exchange of information. 

Question Eight 

Napster sole operations were through violation of and infringement of copyrighted information. Without which, they could not operate, thus, they were forced to shut down to avoid fines. The company was not able to incorporate fair use of exceptions. 

Question Nine 

False. Napster sole purpose was to facilitate peer to peer sharing networking and it did not have direct financial benefits for infringement of its users. The court was concerned with the future potentials of revenue when the company has a ready user base. 

Question Ten 

I believe if Napster provided royalties to original owners of the music or movies, they would still be in existence. Maybe they would be the primary distributors of online music. Companies that took up Napster’s idea and learned from its mistakes have been successful in the distribution of music.