Last year, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. 9th District Court issued a temporary restraining order that, for all practical purposes, shut down the Napster file-trading service. Last week, Judge Patel ruled that the five major recording labels must prove that they own the copyright on all that music, and that those copyrights weren’t used to restrict the distribution of digital music.
Judge Patel found fault with both Napster and the recording companies, writing in her ruling that while Napster was wrong to try to build a business on illegally obtained music, the recording industry’s alleged tactics were much worse.
The case appears to hinge on a pretty simple concept: If the record companies can’t prove that they hold copyright to the music, they can’t demand statutory damages from Napster for copyright infringement. If the court rules that the artists retain copyright on their works, it would be up to them to negotiate a distribution agreement with Napster or sue for copyright infringement.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.