Napster Case - Napster Case So Far weve covered: 1....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Napster Case So Far we’ve covered: 1. Copyright anti circumvention 2. Infringement copyright power 3. File Sharing What was Napster? -Users put their files and in shared napster server -Napster had a large listing of files and their location -Napster didn’t copy anything they just kept a list and a software program through which people could share the music industry’s goal was to return things to the status quo- they wanted people to keep buying the cd’s. But their efforts have not really achieved what they wanted. People aren’t going to stores and buying cd’s anymore. The music industry from 10 years ago is not the same as today. Sued for contributory and vicarious infringement Napster was not directly infringing Contributory= 1. knowing or having reason to know of direct infringement 2. providing the ability/enabling material contributing to the direct infringement Vicarious= 1. Financial interest 2. Right and ability to control or supervise the infringement Defense:
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/10/2010 for the course H ADM 489 taught by Professor Aklausner during the Fall '09 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 2

Napster Case - Napster Case So Far weve covered: 1....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online