In the ongoing battle between the record labels and the controversial Web site that allows free downloading of music, the little guys are striking back.
On Friday, Napster asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to review a ruling issued the previous week by a three-judge panel that stated that Napster could be held liable for copyright infringements. That judgement, if upheld, would permanently shut down the Web site. Napster believes the injunction is too broad and violates their right to free speech.
In Friday’s brief, Napster argued that the panel’s decision would undercut legal protections covering Internet Service Providers and “would obstruct even indisputably lawful uses of Napster’s technology by its over 50 million users.”
Furthermore, the company argues, ordering Napster to “police its services” for copyright violations would undercut a protection Congress gave ISPs under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and “hinder the development of new technologies.”
Napster says that the end result of such an order would be in conflict with a previous Supreme Court decision that states that makers of videocassette recorders cannot be held liable if their devices are used to record copyright-protected television shows.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing the world’s biggest record labels, sued Napster in December 1999 for what they called piracy and the loss of billions of dollars in music sales.
Napster spent the beginning of last week trying to make amends by offering the major record labels $1 billion in licensing fees collectively over five years. The deal would allow Napster users to continue swapping copyrighted songs through a new, more secure interface that the company planned to roll out in July.
At this point, only BMG parent Bertelsmann has sided with Napster, saying that they will drop their suit once the new and improved Napster is launched. So far, none of the other record labels are following suit, apparently angry with Napster for going public rather than discussing the issues behind closed doors.
The intensely popular Web site will remain open at least through March 2, when the U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel will hold a separate hearing to sort out the terms of the modified injunction.
