NAPSTER CLAIMS NO KINSHIP
WITH MP3.COM
Napster has distanced itself from the strong ruling U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff made against MP3.com on Wednesday (9/6).
Rakoff found that the company willfully broke copyright law with its database of more than 80,000 albums. The My.MP3.com service supplied users with an original copy of the recordings in the database to register that CD, which in turn, allowed users to listen to that album over the Internet without having to insert the original disc.
"We believe Judge Rakoff's decision on the MP3.com case is both factually and legally distinct from the Napster case," said Napster attorney Jonathan Schiller. "Rakoff found MP3.com liable for direct infringement because it copied tens of thousands of CDs for its own commercial purposes."
"Nobody at Napster can be accused of direct infringement because we have not copied any of the works. Our technology is completely different and Napster's been accused of contributory infringement."
Schiller admitted there were some similarities between the MP3.com and Napster lawsuits: "Both involve music and the Internet. Both involve copyrights and both involve rather drastic orders against companies which are engaged in music online and have copyright issues.''
Meanwhile, Napster continues to fight off allegations its technology facilitates music piracy. On Friday (9/8), the Recording Industry Association of America will file a brief in response to Napster's latest brief filed Aug. 18. In that brief, Napster asked an appeals court to overturn Judge Marilyn Patel's order that Napster stop users from trading copyrighted songs. That order on July 26 had effectively shut down the file-sharing service.
The appeals court granted Napster a last-minute reprieve by staying the judge's order and has set the week of Oct. 2 for arguments in the Napster trial.
While Napster hopes to eventually settle the matter out of court, the recording industry has been less than enthusiastic.
Schiller said he was optimistic for the upcoming trial, when Napster will show that most of its estimated 28 million users share files for non-commercial purposes.
"If she [Judge Patel] had taken the time to conduct a hearing, she would have realized how much copying actually goes on among each user," said Schiller. "That is one of the hysterical issues I have found in the courts' analysis. We got the stay because we have raised some substantial issues."
