Napster believes they are protected under most of the copyright laws listed below. If they were, then there would be no court case and no Napster Downfall.

I have tried to keep the copyright laws as lehman as I can--cuz I definitely don't understand all that law mumbo-jumbo. I have also provided links for you to read more about the specific law and/or the full text of the law. Enjoy!
more info
This law protects copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copyright protected works.

The penalties for breaking this law are as follows:
1. If it's for commercial or private financial gain: up to 5 years in prison, and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can face up to 10 years of prison time and up to $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed upon.

2. The Federal Anti-Bootleg Statute prohibits the unauthorized reproduction, recording, and distribution of an artist's live musical performance. Punishment could be up to 5 years in jail and $250,000 in fines.
There are also two legal concepts under the Copyright Law that deal with Internet usage:
1. Contributory Infringement: a person who contributes to the infringing conduct of another person with the knowledge they are doing so.
        i.e. a person provides a link on their website to an infringed            song

2. Vicarious Liability: "where an entity or person has the right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and also receives a financial benefit from the infringing activities" (RIAA.com).
more info
This doctrine limits the extent of property interest granted to the copyright holder. For instance, it allows a person to cite a part of the copyrighted work when it's used for teaching, research, news reporting, comment, criticism, or parody.
This act extends the copyright from the life of the author puls 50 years, to life of the author plus 70 years.
or more info
more info
This act allows consumers to copy recorded music for private, noncommercial use.

The AHRA also covers the devices used to make copies such as: digital audio cassette players, minidiscs, and DAT players. It also covers all future digital audio recording technologies, so Congress will not have to keep revising this act everytime something new is invented.

Multipurpose devices, such as CD-ROMs, ARE NOT covered under this act.

Napster is trying very hard to say their system is covered under the AHRA, but the record industry's lawyers produced a 19 page amicus brief proving the court was right to reject this thinking. The following few reasons explain why:
1. When Napster's users create and store copies of music files on their computer, they are not making digital or analog musical recordings as those that are listed in the AHRA.
2. Napster users are also engaged not only in recordings, but also in distributing the recordings to the public. This act is only for the noncommercial copying.
3. Napster's users are not using any of the devices listed under the AHRA. Neither a personal computer, nor a hard disk constitute a "digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium."
    This is because hard drives store more than just music and sound files. And also because more than one type of computer program can be used on it.
more info or more info
This act has basically, 10 main parts, but for Napster purposes only the ones that apply have been listed below.
Service providers must remove material from users' websites that seem to be infringing on on copyrights.

Requires that "webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies.

Prohibits the manufacturing, sale, or distribution devices used to "undermine electronic devices."

Napster's lawyers are trying to use this particular law in court.
more info
Because of this law, sound recording infringements can now be criminally prosecuted even if no monetary profit or commercial gain is being achieved in the infringing activity.
One of the big court cases Napster keeps siting is that of Sony vs. Betamax. The movie industry was trying to prevent the sale of VCRs because consumers could make copies of their films. The courts ruled, however, in favor of the VCR makers.

In 1998, the RIAA sent a cease and desist letter to a junior at Arizona State University for posting music online without getting permission.

Also in 1998, Chuck D was told to take down music he had posted on his website for free after being threatened by his record company, Def Jam, for violating copyright law.

In Dec of 1998, the five major record labels agree to try and co-exist with MP3 technology.

For more information please visit MSNBC.com
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1