A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
1!
, "as an important
inte##ectua# propert$ case in "hich the %nited &tates Court o' (ppea#s 'or the )inth
Circuit ru#ed that the de'endant, )apster, cou#d *e he#d #ia*#e 'or contri*utor$
in'ringement o' the p#ainti'' record compan$+s cop$rights. ,he court a#so re-ected the
suggestion that it impose a compu#sor$ #icensing arrangement on the p#ainti'' record
compan$. ,his "as the 'irst ma-or case to address the app#ication o' the cop$right #a"s to
peer.to.peer 'i#e.sharing.
A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
United States o!rt of Appeals for the
Ninth irc!it
Ar"!ed ### $cto%er &, &'''
(ecided ### Fe%r!ary )&, &'')
Fu## case name: A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster,
Inc.
Citations: 239 F.3d 1004
/rior histor$: ...
&u*se0uent
histor$:
...
*oldin"
...
o!rt mem%ership
hief +!d"e ... 1ar$ 1. &chroeder
Associate +!d"es ... 2ee3er, /ae3
ase opinions
Ma,ority %y- ... 4o*ert 4. 2ee3er
+oined %y- ...
.a/s applied
...
ontents
hide!
1 Facts
2 5ssue
3 4esu#t
4 Chi##ing 6''ect
7 68terna# #in9s
edit!
Facts
,he de'endant, )apster, "as a compan$ started in 1999 *$ &ha"n Fanning then an 1:.
$ear o#d 'reshman computer.science student at 2oston+s )ortheastern %niversit$. 5t
provided a p#at'orm 'or users to up#oad and do"n#oad music 'i#es in a compressed digita#
'ormat. ,he p#ainti''s "ere ma-or record companies "ho sa" the potentia# 'or this
techno#og$ to impact their sa#es, and 0uic9#$ 'i#ed suit against )apster as a ;contri*utor$
and vicarious cop$right in'ringer.; ,he %nited &tates <istrict Court 'ound that )apster
had contri*uted to the in'ringement o' cop$rights o"ned *$ the p#ainti''s, and issued an
in-unction, 'rom "hich )apster appea#ed.
5n order 'or )apster to *e #ia*#e 'or contri*utor$ in'ringement, the users o' the service
had to *e in'ringing direct#$. )apster asserted that this "as not the case, *ut that a
su*stantia# num*er o' its users "ere in 'act engaged in three 9inds o' 'air use:
1. sampling, "here users ma9e temporar$ copies o' a "or9 *e'ore purchasing=
2. space-shifting, "here users access a sound recording through the )apster s$stem
that the$ a#read$ o"n in audio C< 'ormat= and
3. permissive distribution o' recordings *$ *oth ne" and esta*#ished artists
edit!
Iss!e
,he issue presented to the )inth Circuit "as "hether the asserted uses "ere in 'act ;'air
use.; ,he court "as a#so con'ronted "ith the 0uestion o' a so#ution 'or the a##eged
in'ringement, to "hich )apster had proposed a compu#sor$ #icense.
edit!
Res!lt
,he )inth Circuit 'ound that ;)apster users in'ringe at #east t"o o' the cop$right ho#ders+
e8c#usive rights: the rights o' reproduction, > 10?(1)= and distri*ution, > 10?(3).; @ith
respect to the 'air use arguments, the court sharp#$ distinguished the 'acts presented 'rom
;the 2etama8 case;, Sony orp. of America v. !niversal ity Studios, Inc. 4?4 %.&. 41A
(19:4), "here the manu'acturers o' BC4s had no contro# over ho" peop#e used them
a'ter the$ "ere purchased. 2$ contrast, the court 'ound that the o"ners o' )apster cou#d
contro# the in'ringing *ehavior o' users, and there'ore had a dut$ to do so. &amp#ing "as
deemed to not *e a 'air use, *ecause the ;samp#es; "ere in 'act permanent and comp#ete
copies o' the desired media. Furthermore, the space.shi'ting argument did not avai# the
de'endant, *ecause the shi't to a digita# 'ormat "as not a persona# storage use, *ut "as
accompanied *$ sharing the 'i#e "ith the rest o' the "or#d.
,he court a#so re-ected )apsterCs proposed compu#sor$ ro$a#t$, ca##ing that an ;eas$ out;
'or )apster, and contending that the imposition o' such a device "ou#d destro$ the
p#ainti''s+ a*i#it$ to contro# their inte##ectua# propert$.
edit!
hillin" 0ffect
,his ;)apster 4u#ing; has hence'orth 're0uent#$ *een cited as #ega# precedent imposing
threat o' #ia*i#it$ (chi##ing e''ect) against "e*site authors 'or mere#$ h$per#in9ing to
cop$righted content. (s the Cop$right (ct o' 19A? automatica##$ cop$rights a## "or9s
;set in a tangi*#e medium; (e.g. an D,1E 'i#e), an$ on#ine "or9 not speci'ica##$ #icensed
other"ise (e.g. Creative Commons, FF<E) *ecomes cop$righted *$ its author(s). ,hus,
the ver$ nature o' the @or#d @ide @e* and the 5nternet protoco# suite necessitate
contri*utor$ cop$right in'ringement. @hether #in9ing to an$ particu#ar cop$righted "or9
constitutes contri*utor$ in'ringement or 'air use continues to *e -udged in court on a
case.*$.case *asis.
edit!
01ternal links
2 ,e8t o' the opinion 'rom the "e*site o' the %nited &tates Court o' (ppea#s 'or
the )inth Circuit
1A %.&.C. > 10?
Fu## te8t o' the CourtCs 4u#ing
A&M RECORDS, INC., a corporation; GEFFEN
RECORDS, INC., a corporation; INTERSCOPE
RECORDS; SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT,
INC.; MCA RECORDS, INC.; ATLANTIC
RECORDING CORP.; ISLAND RECORDS,
No. 00!"#0!
D.C. No. C$%%0&!'(M)P
INC.; MOTO*N RECORD CO.; CAPITOL
RECORDS, INC.,
P+ainti,,-App.++..-,
/.
NAPSTER, INC.,
D.,.n0antApp.++ant.
11111111111111111111111111111111111
2ERRY LEI3ER, in0i/i04a++5 an0 0oin6
74-in.-- a-, 2ERRY LEI3ER MUSIC; MI8E
STOLLER an0 FRAN8 MUSIC CORP., on
7.9a+, o, t9.:-.+/.- an0 a++ ot9.r- -i:i+ar+5
-it4at.0,
P+ainti,,-App.++..-,
/.
NAPSTER, INC.,
D.,.n0antApp.++ant.
No. 00!"#0(
D.C. No. C$00000;#M)P
OPINION
&ummar$
(ppea# 'rom the %nited &tates <istrict Court
'or the )orthern <istrict o' Ca#i'ornia
1ari#$n Da## /ate#, Chie' <istrict Judge, /residing
(rgued and &u*mitted Gcto*er 2, 2000
&an Francisco, Ca#i'ornia
Fi#ed Fe*ruar$ 12, 2001
2e'ore: &CD4G6<64, Chie' Judge, 266H64 and /(6H, Circuit Judges.
266H64, Circuit Judge:
/#ainti''s are engaged in the commercia# recording, distri*ution and sa#e o' cop$righted
musica# compositions and sound recordings. ,he comp#aint a##eges that )apster, 5nc.
(I)apsterJ) is a contri*utor$ and vicarious cop$right in'ringer. Gn Ju#$ 2?, 2000, the
district court granted p#ainti''sC motion 'or a pre#iminar$ in-unction. ,he in-unction "as
s#ight#$ modi'ied *$ "ritten opinion on (ugust 10, 2000. (K1 4ecords, 5nc. v. )apster,
5nc., 114 F. &upp. 2d :9? ().<. Ca#. 2000). ,he district court pre#iminari#$ en-oined
)apster I'rom engaging in, or 'aci#itating others in cop$ing, do"n#oading, up#oading,
transmitting, or distri*uting p#ainti''s+ cop$righted musica# compositions and sound
recordings, protected *$ either 'edera# or state #a", "ithout e8press permission o' the
rights o"ner.J 5d. at 92A. Federa# 4u#e o' Civi# /rocedure ?7(c) re0uires success'u#
p#ainti''s to post a *ond 'or damages incurred *$ the en-oined part$ in the event that the
in-unction "as "rong'u##$ issued. ,he district court set *ond in this case at L7 mi##ion.
@e entered a temporar$ sta$ o' the pre#iminar$ in-unction pending reso#ution o' this
appea#. @e have -urisdiction pursuant to 2: %.&.C. > 1292(a)(1). @e a''irm in part,
reverse in part and remand.
5
@e have e8amined the papers su*mitted in support o' and in response to the in-unction
app#ication and it appears that )apster has designed and operates a s$stem "hich permits
the transmission and retention o' sound recordings emp#o$ing digita# techno#og$.
5n 19:A, the 1oving /icture 68perts Froup set a standard 'i#e 'ormat 'or the storage o'
audio recordings in a digita# 'ormat ca##ed 1/6F.3, a**reviated as I1/3.J <igita# 1/3
'i#es are created through a process co##o0uia##$ ca##ed Iripping.J 4ipping so't"are a##o"s
a computer o"ner to cop$ an audio compact dis9 (Iaudio C<J) direct#$ onto a
computerCs hard drive *$ compressing the audio in'ormation on the C< into the 1/3
'ormat. ,he 1/3+s compressed 'ormat a##o"s 'or rapid transmission o' digita# audio 'i#es
'rom one computer to another *$ e#ectronic mai# or an$ other 'i#e trans'er protoco#.
)apster 'aci#itates the transmission o' 1/3 'i#es *et"een and among its users. ,hrough a
process common#$ ca##ed Ipeer.to.peerJ 'i#e sharing, )apster a##o"s its users to: (1)
ma9e 1/3 music 'i#es stored on individua# computer hard drives avai#a*#e 'or cop$ing *$
other )apster users= (2) search 'or 1/3 music 'i#es stored on other usersC computers= and
(3) trans'er e8act copies o' the contents o' other usersC 1/3 'i#es 'rom one computer to
another via the 5nternet. ,hese 'unctions are made possi*#e *$ )apsterCs 1usic&hare
so't"are, avai#a*#e 'ree o' charge 'rom )apsterCs 5nternet site, and )apsterCs net"or9
servers and server.side so't"are. )apster provides technica# support 'or the inde8ing and
searching o' 1/3 'i#es, as "e## as 'or its other 'unctions, inc#uding a Ichat room,J "here
users can meet to discuss music, and a director$ "here participating artists can provide
in'ormation a*out their music.
(. (ccessing the &$stem
5n order to cop$ 1/3 'i#es through the )apster s$stem, a user must 'irst access )apsterCs
5nternet site and do"n#oad I,o do"n#oad means to receive in'ormation, t$pica##$ a 'i#e,
'rom another computer to $ours via $our modem . . . . ,he opposite term is up#oad, "hich
means to send a 'i#e to another computer.J %nited &tates v. 1ohr*acher, 1:2 F.3d 1041,
104: (9th Cir. 1999) (0uoting 4o*in @i##iams, Jargon, (n 5n'orma# <ictionar$ o'
Computer ,erms 1A0.A1 (1993)). the 1usic&hare so't"are to his individua# computer.
&ee GOTOBUTTON BM_1_ http:MM""".)apster.com. Gnce the so't"are is insta##ed, the
user can access the )apster s$stem. ( 'irst.time user is re0uired to register "ith the
)apster s$stem *$ creating a Iuser nameJ and pass"ord.
2. Eisting (vai#a*#e Fi#es
5' a registered user "ants to #ist avai#a*#e 'i#es stored in his computerCs hard drive on
)apster 'or others to access, he must 'irst create a Iuser #i*rar$J director$ on his
computerCs hard drive. ,he user then saves his 1/3 'i#es in the #i*rar$ director$, using
se#'.designated 'i#e names. De ne8t must #og into the )apster s$stem using his user name
and pass"ord. Dis 1usic&hare so't"are then searches his user #i*rar$ and veri'ies that
the avai#a*#e 'i#es are proper#$ 'ormatted. 5' in the correct 1/3 'ormat, the names o' the
1/3 'i#es "i## *e up#oaded 'rom the userCs computer to the )apster servers. ,he content
o' the 1/3 'i#es remains stored in the userCs computer.
Gnce up#oaded to the )apster servers, the userCs 1/3 'i#e names are stored in a server.
side I#i*rar$J under the userCs name and *ecome part o' a Ico##ective director$J o' 'i#es
avai#a*#e 'or trans'er during the time the user is #ogged onto the )apster s$stem. ,he
co##ective director$ is '#uid= it trac9s users "ho are connected in rea# time, disp#a$ing
on#$ 'i#e names that are immediate#$ accessi*#e.
C. &earching For (vai#a*#e Fi#es
)apster a##o"s a user to #ocate other usersC 1/3 'i#es in t"o "a$s: through )apsterCs
search 'unction and through its Ihot#istJ 'unction.
&o't"are #ocated on the )apster servers maintains a Isearch inde8J o' )apsterCs
co##ective director$. ,o search the 'i#es avai#a*#e 'rom )apster users current#$ connected
to the net"or9 servers, the individua# user accesses a 'orm in the 1usic&hare so't"are
stored in his computer and enters either the name o' a song or an artist as the o*-ect o' the
search. ,he 'orm is then transmitted to a )apster server and automatica##$ compared to
the 1/3 'i#e names #isted in the serverCs search inde8. )apsterCs server compi#es a #ist o'
a## 1/3 'i#e names pu##ed 'rom the search inde8 "hich inc#ude the same search terms
entered on the search 'orm and transmits the #ist to the searching user. ,he )apster server
does not search the contents o' an$ 1/3 'i#e= rather, the search is #imited to Ia te8t search
o' the 'i#e names inde8ed in a particu#ar c#uster. ,hose 'i#e names ma$ contain
t$pographica# errors or other"ise inaccurate descriptions o' the content o' the 'i#es since
the$ are designated *$ other users.J )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 90?.
,o use the Ihot#istJ 'unction, the )apster user creates a #ist o' other usersC names 'rom
"hom he has o*tained 1/3 'i#es in the past. @hen #ogged onto )apsterCs servers, the
s$stem a#erts the user i' an$ user on his #ist (a Ihot#isted userJ) is a#so #ogged onto the
s$stem. 5' so, the user can access an inde8 o' a## 1/3 'i#e names in a particu#ar hot#isted
userCs #i*rar$ and re0uest a 'i#e in the #i*rar$ *$ se#ecting the 'i#e name. ,he contents o'
the hot#isted userCs 1/3 'i#e are not stored on the )apster s$stem.
<. ,rans'erring Copies o' an 1/3 'i#e
,o trans'er a cop$ o' the contents o' a re0uested 1/3 'i#e, the )apster server so't"are
o*tains the 5nternet address o' the re0uesting user and the 5nternet address o' the Ihost
userJ (the user "ith the avai#a*#e 'i#es). &ee genera##$ 2roo9'ie#d Communications, 5nc.
v. @est Coast 6ntmCt Corp., 1A4 F.3d 103?, 1044 (9th Cir. 1999) (descri*ing, in detai#,
the structure o' the 5nternet). ,he )apster servers then communicate the host userCs
5nternet address to the re0uesting user. ,he re0uesting userCs computer uses this
in'ormation to esta*#ish a connection "ith the host user and do"n#oads a cop$ o' the
contents o' the 1/3 'i#e 'rom one computer to the other over the 5nternet, Ipeer.to.peer.J
( do"n#oaded 1/3 'i#e can *e p#a$ed direct#$ 'rom the userCs hard drive using )apsterCs
1usic&hare program or other so't"are. ,he 'i#e ma$ a#so *e trans'erred *ac9 onto an
audio C< i' the user has access to e0uipment designed 'or that purpose. 5n *oth cases, the
0ua#it$ o' the origina# sound recording is s#ight#$ diminished *$ trans'er to the 1/3
'ormat.
,his architecture is descri*ed in some detai# to promote an understanding o' transmission
mechanics as opposed to the content o' the transmissions. ,he content is the su*-ect o'
our cop$right in'ringement ana#$sis.
55
@e revie" a grant or denia# o' a pre#iminar$ in-unction 'or a*use o' discretion. For*ach
v. 4eno, 219 F.3d 10:A, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000) (en *anc). (pp#ication o' erroneous #ega#
princip#es represents an a*use o' discretion *$ the district court. 4uc9er v. <avis, NN F.3d
NN, 2001 @E 77A24, at O4 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2001) (en *anc). 5' the district court is
c#aimed to have re#ied on an erroneous #ega# premise in reaching its decision to grant or
den$ a pre#iminar$ in-unction, "e "i## revie" the under#$ing issue o' #a" de novo. 5d. at
O4 (citing <oes 1.7 v. Chand#er, :3 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 199?)).
Gn revie", "e are re0uired to determine, I"hether the court emp#o$ed the appropriate
#ega# standards governing the issuance o' a pre#iminar$ in-unction and "hether the
district court correct#$ apprehended the #a" "ith respect to the under#$ing issues in the
case.J 5d. I(s #ong as the district court got the #a" right, Pit "i## not *e reversed simp#$
*ecause the appe##ate court "ou#d have arrived at a di''erent resu#t i' it had app#ied the
#a" to the 'acts o' the case.CJ Fregorio ,. v. @i#son, 79 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1997)
(0uoting &ports Form, 5nc. v. %nited /ress, 5ntC#, ?:? F.2d A70, A72 (9th Cir. 19:2)).
/re#iminar$ in-unctive re#ie' is avai#a*#e to a part$ "ho demonstrates either: (1) a
com*ination o' pro*a*#e success on the merits and the possi*i#it$ o' irrepara*#e harm= or
(2) that serious 0uestions are raised and the *a#ance o' hardships tips in its 'avor.
/rudentia# 4ea# 6state (''i#iates, 5nc. v. //4 4ea#t$, 5nc., 204 F.3d :?A, :A4 (9th Cir.
2000). I,hese t"o 'ormu#ations represent t"o points on a s#iding sca#e in "hich the
re0uired degree o' irrepara*#e harm increases as the pro*a*i#it$ o' success decreases.J 5d.
555
/#ainti''s c#aim )apster users are engaged in the "ho#esa#e reproduction and distri*ution
o' cop$righted "or9s, a## constituting direct in'ringement. &econdar$ #ia*i#it$ 'or
cop$right in'ringement does not e8ist in the a*sence o' direct in'ringement *$ a third
part$. 4e#igious ,ech. Ctr. v. )etcom Gn.Eine Communication &ervs., 5nc., 90A F. &upp.
13?1, 13A1 ().<. Ca#. 1997) (I,!here can *e no contri*utor$ in'ringement *$ a
de'endant "ithout direct in'ringement *$ another.J). 5t 'o##o"s that )apster does not
'aci#itate in'ringement o' the cop$right #a"s in the a*sence o' direct in'ringement *$ its
users. ,he district court agreed. @e note that the district courtCs conc#usion that p#ainti''s
have presented a prima 'acie case o' direct in'ringement *$ )apster users is not present#$
appea#ed *$ )apster. @e on#$ need *rie'#$ address the thresho#d re0uirements.
(. 5n'ringement
/#ainti''s must satis'$ t"o re0uirements to present a prima 'acie case o' direct
in'ringement: (1) the$ must sho" o"nership o' the a##eged#$ in'ringed materia# and (2)
the$ must demonstrate that the a##eged in'ringers vio#ate at #east one e8c#usive right
granted to cop$right ho#ders under 1A %.&.C. > 10?. &ee 1A %.&.C. > 701(a)
(in'ringement occurs "hen a##eged in'ringer engages in activit$ #isted in > 10?)= see a#so
2a8ter v. 1C(, 5nc., :12 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir. 19:A)= see, e.g., &.G.&., 5nc. v. /a$da$,
5nc., ::? F.2d 10:1, 10:7 n.3 (9th Cir. 19:9) (I,he "ord Pcop$ingC is shorthand 'or the
in'ringing o' an$ o' the cop$right o"ner+s 'ive e8c#usive rights . . . .J). /#ainti''s have
su''icient#$ demonstrated o"nership. ,he record supports the district courtCs
determination that Ias much as eight$.seven percent o' the 'i#es avai#a*#e on )apster ma$
*e cop$righted and more than sevent$ percent ma$ *e o"ned or administered *$
p#ainti''s.J )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 911.
,he district court 'urther determined that p#ainti''sC e8c#usive rights under > 10? "ere
vio#ated: Ihere the evidence esta*#ishes that a ma-orit$ o' )apster users use the service to
do"n#oad and up#oad cop$righted music. . . . (nd *$ doing that, it constitutesQthe uses
constitute direct in'ringement o' p#ainti''s+ musica# compositions, recordings.J (K1
4ecords, 5nc. v. )apster, 5nc., )os. 99.71:3, 00.00A4, 2000 @E 10094:3, at O1 ().<.
Ca#. Ju#$ 2?, 2000) (transcript o' proceedings). ,he district court a#so noted that Iit is
prett$ much ac9no"#edged . . . *$ )apster that this is in'ringement.J 5d. @e agree that
p#ainti''s have sho"n that )apster users in'ringe at #east t"o o' the cop$right ho#dersC
e8c#usive rights: the rights o' reproduction, > 10?(1)= and distri*ution, > 10?(3). )apster
users "ho up#oad 'i#e names to the search inde8 'or others to cop$ vio#ate p#ainti''sC
distri*ution rights. )apster users "ho do"n#oad 'i#es containing cop$righted music
vio#ate p#ainti''sC reproduction rights.
)apster asserts an a''irmative de'ense to the charge that its users direct#$ in'ringe
p#ainti''sC cop$righted musica# compositions and sound recordings.
2. Fair %se
)apster contends that its users do not direct#$ in'ringe p#ainti''sC cop$rights *ecause the
users are engaged in 'air use o' the materia#. &ee 1A %.&.C. > 10A (I,!he 'air use o' a
cop$righted "or9 . . . is not an in'ringement o' cop$right.J). )apster identi'ies three
speci'ic a##eged 'air uses: samp#ing, "here users ma9e temporar$ copies o' a "or9 *e'ore
purchasing= space.shi'ting, "here users access a sound recording through the )apster
s$stem that the$ a#read$ o"n in audio C< 'ormat= and permissive distri*ution o'
recordings *$ *oth ne" and esta*#ished artists.
,he district court considered 'actors #isted in 1A %.&.C. > 10A, "hich guide a courtCs 'air
use determination. ,hese 'actors are: (1) the purpose and character o' the use= (2) the
nature o' the cop$righted "or9= (3) the Iamount and su*stantia#it$ o' the portion usedJ in
re#ation to the "or9 as a "ho#e= and (4) the e''ect o' the use upon the potentia# mar9et 'or
the "or9 or the va#ue o' the "or9. &ee 1A %.&.C. > 10A. ,he district court 'irst conducted
a genera# ana#$sis o' )apster s$stem uses under > 10A, and then app#ied its reasoning to
the a##eged 'air uses identi'ied *$ )apster. ,he district court conc#uded that )apster users
are not 'air users. )apster asserts that *ecause p#ainti''s see9 in-unctive re#ie', the$ have
the *urden o' sho"ing a #i9e#ihood that the$ "ou#d prevai# against an$ a''irmative
de'enses raised *$ )apster, inc#uding its 'air use de'ense under 1A %.&.C. > 10A. &ee
(tari Fames Corp. v. )intendo, 9A7 F.2d :32, :3A (Fed. Cir. 1992) ('o##o"ing )inth
Circuit #a", and stating that p#ainti'' must sho" #i9e#ihood o' success on prima 'acie
cop$right in'ringement case and #i9e#ihood that it "ou#d overcome cop$right misuse
de'ense)= see a#so <r. &euss 6nters. v. /enguin 2oo9s %&(, 924 F. &upp. 1779, 17?2
(&.<. Ca#. 199?) (I,he p#ainti''+s *urden o' sho"ing a #i9e#ihood o' success on the merits
inc#udes the *urden o' sho"ing a #i9e#ihood that it "ou#d prevai# against an$ a''irmative
de'enses raised *$ the de'endant.J), a''Cd, 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 199A)= 4e#igious ,ech.
Ctr. v. )etcom Gn.Eine Communication &ervs., 923 F. &upp. 1231, 1242 n.12 (1997)
(same)= 2 @i##iam @. &ch"ar3er et a#., Ca#i'ornia /ractice Fuide, Federa# Civi#
/rocedure 2e'ore ,ria# R 13:4A (2000) (advising that "hen a pre#iminar$ in-unction is
sought Ip#ainti'' must demonstrate a #i9e#ihood o' prevai#ing on an$ a''irmative de'ense
as "e## as on p#ainti''Cs case in chie'J). 2ut see Fair %se o' Cop$righted @or9s, D.4.
4ep. 102.:3? n.3 (critici3ing a )orthern <istrict o' )e" Sor9 case in "hich Ithe district
court erroneous#$ he#d that "here the cop$right o"ner see9s a pre#iminar$ in-unction, the
cop$right o"ner *ears the *urden o' disproving the 'air use! de'enseJ)= see a#so 1
@i##iam F. /atr$, Cop$right Ea" K /ractice, A27, A27 n.2A (1994) (citing cases p#acing
*urden on de'endant at pre#iminar$ in-unction stage).
,he district court stated that Ide'endant *ears the *urden o' proving . . . a''irmative
de'enses.J )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 912. /#ainti''s assert that the district court did not
err in p#acing the *urden on )apster. @e conc#ude that even i' p#ainti''s *ear the *urden
o' esta*#ishing that the$ "ou#d #i9e#$ prevai# against )apsterCs a''irmative de'enses at the
pre#iminar$ in-unction stage, the record supports the district courtCs conc#usion that
)apster users do not engage in 'air use o' the cop$righted materia#s. @e agree. @e 'irst
address the courtCs overa## 'air use ana#$sis.
1. 3!rpose and haracter of the Use
,his 'actor 'ocuses on "hether the ne" "or9 mere#$ rep#aces the o*-ect o' the origina#
creation or instead adds a 'urther purpose or di''erent character. In other /ords, this
factor asks 4/hether and to /hat e1tent the ne/ /ork is 5transformative.CJ &ee
Camp*e## v. (cu''.4ose 1usic, 5nc., 710 %.&. 7?9, 7A9 (1994).
,he district court 'irst conc#uded that do"n#oading 1/3 'i#es does not trans'orm the
cop$righted "or9. )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 912. ,his conc#usion is supporta*#e.
Courts have *een re#uctant to 'ind 'air use "hen an origina# "or9 is mere#$ retransmitted
in a di''erent medium. &ee, e.g., 5n'init$ 2roadcast Corp. v. Tir9"ood, 170 F.3d 104, 10:
(2d Cir. 1994) (conc#uding that retransmission o' radio *roadcast over te#ephone #ines is
not trans'ormative)= %1F 4ecordings, 5nc. v. 1/3.com, 5nc., 92 F. &upp. 2d 349, 371
(&.<.).S.) ('inding that reproduction o' audio C< into 1/3 'ormat does not Itrans'ormJ
the "or9), certi'ication denied, 2000 @E A1007? (&.<.).S. June 1, 2000) (I<e'endant+s
cop$right in'ringement "as c#ear, and the mere 'act that it "as c#othed in the e8otic
"e**ing o' the 5nternet does not disguise its i##ega#it$.J).
6his 4p!rpose and character7 element also re8!ires the district co!rt to determine
/hether the alle"edly infrin"in" !se is commercial or noncommercial. &ee Camp*e##,
710 %.&. at 7:4.:7. ( commercia# use "eighs against a 'inding o' 'air use *ut is not
conc#usive on the issue. 5d. ,he district court determined that )apster users engage in
commercia# use o' the cop$righted materia#s #arge#$ *ecause (1) Ia host user sending a
'i#e cannot *e said to engage in a persona# use "hen distri*uting that 'i#e to an
anon$mous re0uesterJ and (2) I)apster users get 'or 'ree something the$ "ou#d
ordinari#$ have to *u$.J )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 912. ,he district courtCs 'indings are
not c#ear#$ erroneous.
(irect economic %enefit is not re8!ired to demonstrate a commercial !se. Rather,
repeated and e1ploitative copyin" of copyri"hted /orks, even if the copies are not
offered for sale, may constit!te a commercial !se. &ee @or#d"ide Church o' Fod v.
/hi#ade#phia Church o' Fod, 22A F.3d 1110, 111: (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that church that
copied re#igious te8t 'or its mem*ers Iun0uestiona*#$ pro'ited!J 'rom the unauthori3ed
Idistri*ution and use o' the te8t! "ithout having to account to the cop$right ho#derJ)=
(merican Feoph$sica# %nion v. ,e8aco, 5nc., ?0 F.3d 913, 922 (2d Cir. 1994) ('inding
that researchers at 'or.pro'it #a*orator$ gained indirect economic advantage *$
photocop$ing cop$righted scho#ar#$ artic#es). In the record %efore !s, commercial !se
is demonstrated %y a sho/in" that repeated and e1ploitative !na!thori9ed copies of
copyri"hted /orks /ere made to save the e1pense of p!rchasin" a!thori9ed copies.
&ee @or#d"ide Church, 22A F.3d at 111A.1:= &ega 6nters. Etd. v. 1(/D5(, :7A F.
&upp. ?A9, ?:A ().<. Ca#. 1994) ('inding commercia# use "hen individua#s do"n#oaded
copies o' video games Ito avoid having to *u$ video game cartridgesJ)= see a#so
(merican Feoph$sica#, ?0 F.3d at 922. /#ainti''s made such a sho"ing *e'ore the district
court. )apster counters that even i' certain users engage in commercia# use *$
do"n#oading instead o' purchasing the music, space.shi'ting and samp#ing are
neverthe#ess noncommercia# in nature. @e address this contention in our discussion o'
these speci'ic uses, in'ra.
We also note that the definition of a financially motivated transaction for the
p!rposes of criminal copyri"ht actions incl!des tradin" infrin"in" copies of a /ork
for other items, 4incl!din" the receipt of other copyri"hted /orks.J &ee )o
6#ectronic ,he't (ct (I)6, (ctJ), /u*. E. )o. 107.14A, 1: %.&.C. > 101 (de'ining
IFinancia# FainJ).
2. ,he )ature o' the %se
@or9s that are creative in nature are Ic#oser to the core o' intended cop$right protectionJ
than are more 'act.*ased "or9s. &ee Camp*e##, 710 %.&. at 7:?. ,he district court
determined that p#ainti''sC Icop$righted musica# compositions and sound recordings are
creative in nature . . . "hich cuts against a 'inding o' 'air use under the second 'actor.J
)apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 913. @e 'ind no error in the district courtCs conc#usion.
3. ,he /ortion %sed
IWhile 5/holesale copyin" does not precl!de fair !se per se,: copyin" an entire /ork
5militates a"ainst a findin" of fair !se.CJ @or#d"ide Church, 22A F.3d at 111: (0uoting
Dust#er 1aga3ine, 5nc. v. 1ora# 1a-orit$, 5nc., A9? F.2d 114:, 1177 (9th Cir. 19:?)).
,he district court determined that )apster users engage in I"ho#esa#e cop$ingJ o'
cop$righted "or9 *ecause 'i#e trans'er necessari#$ Iinvo#ves cop$ing the entiret$ o' the
cop$righted "or9.J )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 913. @e agree. @e note, ho"ever, that
under certain circumstances, a court "i## conc#ude that a use is 'air even "hen the
protected "or9 is copied in its entiret$. &ee, e.g., &on$ Corp. v. %niversa# Cit$ &tudios,
5nc., 4?4 %.&. 41A, 449.70 (19:4) (ac9no"#edging that 'air use o' time.shi'ting
necessari#$ invo#ved ma9ing a 'u## cop$ o' a protected "or9).
4. 6''ect o' %se on 1ar9et
4Fair !se, /hen properly applied, is limited to copyin" %y others /hich does not
materially impair the marketa%ility of the /ork /hich is copied.J Darper K 4o"
/u*#ishers, 5nc. v. )ation 6nters., 4A1 %.&. 739, 7??.?A (19:7). ;,!he importance o' this
'ourth! 'actor "i## var$, not on#$ "ith the amount o' harm, *ut a#so "ith the re#ative
strength o' the sho"ing on the other 'actors.; Camp*e##, 710 %.&. at 791 n.21. ,he proo'
re0uired to demonstrate present or 'uture mar9et harm varies "ith the purpose and
character o' the use:
( cha##enge to a noncommercia# use o' a cop$righted "or9 re0uires proo' either that the
particu#ar use is harm'u#, or that i' it shou#d *ecome "idespread, it "ou#d adverse#$ a''ect
the potentia# mar9et 'or the cop$righted "or9. . . . 5' the intended use is 'or commercia#
gain, that #i9e#ihood o' mar9et harm! ma$ *e presumed. 2ut i' it is 'or a noncommercia#
purpose, the #i9e#ihood must *e demonstrated.
&on$, 4?4 %.&. at 471 (emphases added).
(ddressing this 'actor, the district court conc#uded that )apster harms the mar9et in Iat
#eastJ t"o "a$s: it reduces audio C< sa#es among co##ege students and it Iraises *arriers
to p#ainti''sC entr$ into the mar9et 'or the digita# do"n#oading o' music.J )apster, 114 F.
&upp. 2d at 913. ,he district court re#ied on evidence p#ainti''s su*mitted to sho" that
)apster use harms the mar9et 'or their cop$righted musica# compositions and sound
recordings. 5n a separate memorandum and order regarding the partiesC o*-ections to the
e8pert reports, the district court e8amined each report, 'inding some more appropriate and
pro*ative than others. (K1 4ecords, 5nc. v. )apster, 5nc., )os. 99.71:3 K 00.00A4,
2000 @E 11A010? ().<. Ca#. (ugust 10, 2000). )ota*#$, p#ainti''sC e8pert, <r. 6.
<e*orah Ja$, conducted a surve$ (the IJa$ 4eportJ) using a random samp#e o' co##ege
and universit$ students to trac9 their reasons 'or using )apster and the impact )apster
had on their music purchases. 5d. at O2. ,he court recogni3ed that the Ja$ 4eport 'ocused
on -ust one segment o' the )apster user popu#ation and 'ound Ievidence o' #ost sa#es
attri*uta*#e to co##ege use to *e pro*ative o' irrepara*#e harm 'or purposes o' the
pre#iminar$ in-unction motion.J 5d. at O3.
/#ainti''s a#so o''ered a stud$ conducted *$ 1ichae# Fine, Chie' 68ecutive G''icer o'
&oundscan, (the IFine 4eportJ) to determine the e''ect o' on#ine sharing o' 1/3 'i#es in
order to sho" irrepara*#e harm. Fine 'ound that on#ine 'i#e sharing had resu#ted in a #oss
o' Ia#*umJ sa#es "ithin co##ege mar9ets. ('ter revie"ing de'endantCs o*-ections to the
Fine 4eport and e8pressing some concerns regarding the methodo#og$ and 'indings, the
district court re'used to e8c#ude the Fine 4eport inso'ar as p#ainti''s o''ered it to sho"
irrepara*#e harm. 5d. at O?.
/#ainti''sC e8pert <r. <avid J. ,eece studied severa# issues (I,eece 4eportJ), inc#uding
"hether p#ainti''s had su''ered or "ere #i9e#$ to su''er harm in their e8isting and p#anned
*usinesses due to )apster use. 5d. )apster o*-ected that the report had not undergone peer
revie". ,he district court noted that such reports genera##$ are not su*-ect to such
scrutin$ and overru#ed de'endantCs o*-ections. 5d.
(s 'or de'endantCs e8perts, p#ainti''s o*-ected to the report o' <r. /eter &. Fader, in "hich
the e8pert conc#uded that )apster is *ene'icia# to the music industr$ *ecause 1/3 music
'i#e.sharing stimu#ates more audio C< sa#es than it disp#aces. 5d. at OA. ,he district court
'ound pro*#ems in <r. FaderCs minima# ro#e in overseeing the administration o' the
surve$ and the #ac9 o' o*-ective data in his report. ,he court decided the genera#it$ o' the
report rendered it Io' du*ious re#ia*i#it$ and va#ue.J ,he court did not e8c#ude the report,
ho"ever, *ut chose Inot to re#$ on FaderCs 'indings in determining the issues o' 'air use
and irrepara*#e harm.J 5d. at O:.
,he district court cited *oth the Ja$ and Fine 4eports in support o' its 'inding that
Napster !se harms the market for plaintiffs: copyri"hted m!sical compositions and
so!nd recordin"s %y red!cin" ( sales amon" colle"e st!dents. ,he district court
cited the ,eece 4eport to sho" the harm )apster use caused in raising *arriers to
p#ainti''sC entr$ into the mar9et 'or digita# do"n#oading o' music. )apster, 114 F. &upp.
2d at 910. ,he district courtCs care'u# consideration o' de'endantCs o*-ections to these
reports and decision to re#$ on the reports 'or speci'ic issues demonstrates a proper
e8ercise o' discretion in addition to a correct app#ication o' the 'air use doctrine.
<e'endant has 'ai#ed to sho" an$ *asis 'or distur*ing the district courtCs 'indings.
We, therefore, concl!de that the district co!rt made so!nd findin"s related to
Napster:s deleterio!s effect on the present and f!t!re di"ital do/nload market.
Moreover, lack of harm to an esta%lished market cannot deprive the copyri"ht
holder of the ri"ht to develop alternative markets for the /orks. &ee E.(. ,imes v.
Free 4epu*#ic, 74 %.&./.U.2d 1473, 14?9.A1 (C.<. Ca#. 2000) (stating that on#ine mar9et
'or p#ainti'' ne"spapersC artic#es "as harmed *ecause p#ainti''s demonstrated that
Ide'endants! are attempting to e8p#oit the mar9et 'or vie"ing their artic#es on#ineJ)= see
a#so %1F 4ecordings, 92 F. &upp. 2d at 372 (I(n$ a##eged#$ positive impact o'
de'endantCs activities on p#ainti''sC prior mar9et in no "a$ 'rees de'endant to usurp a
'urther mar9et that direct#$ derives 'rom reproduction o' the p#ainti''sC cop$righted
"or9s.J). Dere, simi#ar to E.(. ,imes and %1F 4ecordings, the record supports the
district courtCs 'inding that the Irecord compan$ p#ainti''s have a#read$ e8pended
considera*#e 'unds and e''ort to commence 5nternet sa#es and #icensing 'or digita#
do"n#oads.J 114 F. &upp. 2d at 917. *avin" di"ital do/nloads availa%le for free on
the Napster system necessarily harms the copyri"ht holders: attempts to char"e for
the same do/nloads.
Judge /ate# did not a*use her discretion in reaching the a*ove 'air use conc#usions, nor
"ere the 'indings o' 'act "ith respect to 'air use considerations c#ear#$ erroneous. @e
ne8t address )apsterCs identi'ied uses o' samp#ing and space.shi'ting.
7. 5denti'ied %ses
)apster maintains that its identi'ied uses o' samp#ing and space.shi'ting "ere "rong#$
e8c#uded as 'air uses *$ the district court.
a. Samplin"
)apster contends that its users do"n#oad 1/3 'i#es to Isamp#eJ the music in order to
decide "hether to purchase the recording. )apster argues that the district court: (1) erred
in conc#uding that samp#ing is a commercia# use *ecause it con'#ated a noncommercia#
use "ith a persona# use= (2) erred in determining that samp#ing adverse#$ a''ects the
mar9et 'or p#ainti''sC cop$righted music, a re0uirement i' the use is noncommercia#= and
(3) erroneous#$ conc#uded that samp#ing is not a 'air use *ecause it determined that
samp#ers ma$ a#so engage in other in'ringing activit$.
,he district court determined that samp#ing remains a commercia# use even i' some users
eventua##$ purchase the music. @e 'ind no error in the district courtCs determination.
/#ainti''s have esta*#ished that the$ are #i9e#$ to succeed in proving that even authori3ed
temporar$ do"n#oading o' individua# songs 'or samp#ing purposes is commercia# in
nature. &ee )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 913. ,he record supports a 'inding that 'ree
promotiona# do"n#oads are high#$ regu#ated *$ the record compan$ p#ainti''s and that the
companies co##ect ro$a#ties 'or song samp#es avai#a*#e on retai# 5nternet sites. 5d.
6vidence re#ied on *$ the district court demonstrates that the 'ree do"n#oads provided *$
the record companies consist o' thirt$.to.si8t$ second samp#es or are 'u## songs
programmed to Itime out,J that is, e8ist on#$ 'or a short time on the do"n#oaderCs
computer. 5d. at 913.14. 5n comparison, )apster users do"n#oad a 'u##, 'ree and
permanent cop$ o' the recording. 5d. at 914.17. ,he determination *$ the district court as
to the commercia# purpose and character o' samp#ing is not c#ear#$ erroneous.
,he district court 'urther 'ound that *oth the mar9et 'or audio C<s and mar9et 'or on#ine
distri*ution are adverse#$ a''ected *$ )apsterCs service. (s stated in our discussion o' the
district courtCs genera# 'air use ana#$sis: the court did not a*use its discretion "hen it
'ound that, overa##, )apster has an adverse impact on the audio C< and digita# do"n#oad
mar9ets. Contrar$ to )apsterCs assertion that the district court 'ai#ed to speci'ica##$
address the mar9et impact o' samp#ing, the district court determined that Ie!ven i' the
t$pe o' samp#ing supposed#$ done on )apster "ere a non.commercia# use, p#ainti''s have
demonstrated a su*stantia# #i9e#ihood that it "ou#d adverse#$ a''ect the potentia# mar9et
'or their cop$righted "or9s i' it *ecame "idespread.J )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 914.
6he record s!pports the district co!rt:s preliminary determinations that- ;)< the
more m!sic that samplin" !sers do/nload, the less likely they are to event!ally
p!rchase the recordin"s on a!dio (= and ;&< even if the a!dio ( market is not
harmed, Napster has adverse effects on the developin" di"ital do/nload market.
)apster 'urther argues that the district court erred in re-ecting its evidence that the usersC
do"n#oading o' Isamp#esJ increases or tends to increase audio C< sa#es. ,he district
court, ho"ever, correct#$ noted that Ian$ potentia# enhancement o' p#ainti''sC sa#es . . .
"ou#d not tip the 'air use ana#$sis conc#usive#$ in 'avor o' de'endant.J 5d. at 914. We
a"ree that increased sales of copyri"hted material attri%!ta%le to !na!thori9ed !se
sho!ld not deprive the copyri"ht holder of the ri"ht to license the material. &ee
Camp*e##, 710 %.&. at 791 n.21 (I6ven 'avora*#e evidence, "ithout more, is no guarantee
o' 'airness. +!d"e .eval "ives the e1ample of the film prod!cer>s appropriation of a
composer>s previo!sly !nkno/n son" that t!rns the son" into a commercial s!ccess=
the %oon to the son" does not make the film>s simple copyin" fair.7)= see a#so E.(.
,imes, 74 %.&./.U.2d at 14A1.A2. )or does positive impact in one mar9et, here the audio
C< mar9et, deprive the cop$right ho#der o' the right to deve#op identi'ied a#ternative
mar9ets, here the digita# do"n#oad mar9et. &ee id. at 14?9.A1.
@e 'ind no error in the district courtCs 'actua# 'indings or a*use o' discretion in the
courtCs conc#usion that p#ainti''s "i## #i9e#$ prevai# in esta*#ishing that samp#ing does not
constitute a 'air use.
*. Space#Shiftin"
)apster a#so maintains that space.shi'ting is a 'air use. &pace.shi'ting occurs "hen a
)apster user do"n#oads 1/3 music 'i#es in order to #isten to music he a#read$ o"ns on
audio C<. &ee id. at 917.1?. )apster asserts that "e have a#read$ he#d that space.shi'ting
o' musica# compositions and sound recordings is a 'air use. &ee 4ecording 5ndus. (ssCn
o' (m. v. <iamond 1u#timedia &$s., 5nc., 1:0 F.3d 10A2, 10A9 (9th Cir. 1999) (I4io a
porta*#e 1/3 p#a$er! mere#$ ma9es copies in order to render porta*#e, or Pspace.shi't,C
those 'i#es that a#read$ reside on a userCs hard drive. . . . &uch cop$ing is a paradigmatic
noncommercia# persona# use.J). &ee a#so genera##$ &on$, 4?4 %.&. at 423 (ho#ding that
Itime.shi'ting,J "here a video tape recorder o"ner records a te#evision sho" 'or #ater
vie"ing, is a 'air use).
@e conc#ude that the district court did not err "hen it re'used to app#$ the Ishi'tingJ
ana#$ses o' &on$ and <iamond. 2oth <iamond and &on$ are inapposite *ecause the
methods o' shi'ting in these cases did not a#so simu#taneous#$ invo#ve distri*ution o' the
cop$righted materia# to the genera# pu*#ic= the time or space.shi'ting o' cop$righted
materia# e8posed the materia# on#$ to the origina# user. 5n <iamond, 'or e8amp#e, the
cop$righted music "as trans'erred 'rom the userCs computer hard drive to the userCs
porta*#e 1/3 p#a$er. &o too &on$, "here Ithe ma-orit$ o' BC4 purchasers . . . did not
distri*ute taped te#evision *roadcasts, *ut mere#$ en-o$ed them at home.J )apster, 114 F.
&upp. 2d at 913. Converse#$, it is o*vious that once a user #ists a cop$ o' music he
a#read$ o"ns on the )apster s$stem in order to access the music 'rom another #ocation,
the song *ecomes Iavai#a*#e to mi##ions o' other individua#s,J not -ust the origina# C<
o"ner. &ee %1F 4ecordings, 92 F. &upp. 2d at 371.72 ('inding space.shi'ting o' 1/3
'i#es not a 'air use even "hen previous o"nership is demonstrated *e'ore a do"n#oad is
a##o"ed)= c'. 4e#igious ,ech. Ctr. v. Eerma, )o. 97.110A(, 199? @E ?33131, at O? (6.<.
Ba. Gct. 4, 199?) (suggesting that storing cop$righted materia# on computer dis9 'or #ater
revie" is not a 'air use).
c. ab Gther %ses
/ermissive reproduction *$ either independent or esta*#ished artists is the 'ina# 'air use
c#aim made *$ )apster. ,he district court noted that p#ainti''s did not see9 to en-oin this
and an$ other nonin'ringing use o' the )apster s$stem, inc#uding: chat rooms, message
*oards and )apsterCs )e" (rtist /rogram. )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 91A. /#ainti''s do
not cha##enge these uses on appea#.
@e 'ind no error in the district courtCs determination that p#ainti''s "i## #i9e#$ succeed in
esta*#ishing that )apster users do not have a 'air use de'ense. (ccording#$, "e ne8t
address "hether )apster is secondari#$ #ia*#e 'or the direct in'ringement under t"o
doctrines o' cop$right #a": contri*utor$ cop$right in'ringement and vicarious cop$right
in'ringement.
5B
@e 'irst address p#ainti''sC c#aim that )apster is #ia*#e 'or contri*utor$ cop$right
in'ringement. ,raditiona##$, Ione "ho, "ith 9no"#edge o' the in'ringing activit$,
induces, causes or materia##$ contri*utes to the in'ringing conduct o' another, ma$ *e
he#d #ia*#e as a Pcontri*utor$C in'ringer.J Fersh"in /u*#Cg Corp. v. Co#um*ia (rtists
1gmt., 5nc., 443 F.2d 1179, 11?2 (2d Cir. 19A1)= see a#so Fonovisa, 5nc. v. Cherr$
(uction, 5nc., A? F.3d 279, 2?4 (9th Cir. 199?). /ut di''erent#$, #ia*i#it$ e8ists i' the
de'endant engages in Ipersona# conduct that encourages or assists the in'ringement.J
1atthe" 2ender K Co. v. @est /u*#Cg Co., 17: F.3d ?93, A0? (2d Cir. 199:).
,he district court determined that p#ainti''s in a## #i9e#ihood "ou#d esta*#ish )apsterCs
#ia*i#it$ as a contri*utor$ in'ringer. ,he district court did not err= Napster, %y its
cond!ct, kno/in"ly enco!ra"es and assists the infrin"ement of plaintiffs:
copyri"hts.
(. Tno"#edge
Contri*utor$ #ia*i#it$ re0uires that the secondar$ in'ringer I9no" or have reason to
9no"J o' direct in'ringement. Ca*#eMDome Communication Corp. )et"or9 /rods., 5nc.,
902 F.2d :29, :47 K :4? n.29 (11th Cir. 1990)= 4e#igious ,ech. Ctr. v. )etcom Gn.Eine
Communication &ervs., 5nc., 90A F. &upp. 13?1, 13A3.A4 ().<. Ca#. 1997) ('raming issue
as I"hether )etcom 9ne" or shou#d have 9no"n o'J the in'ringing activities). 6he
district co!rt fo!nd that Napster had %oth act!al and constr!ctive kno/led"e that
its !sers e1chan"ed copyri"hted m!sic. 6he district co!rt also concl!ded that the
la/ does not re8!ire kno/led"e of 4specific acts of infrin"ement7 and re,ected
Napster:s contention that %eca!se the company cannot distin"!ish infrin"in" from
noninfrin"in" files, it does not 4kno/7 of the direct infrin"ement. 114 F. &upp. 2d at
91A.
5t is apparent 'rom the record that )apster has 9no"#edge, *oth actua# and constructive,
,he district court 'ound actua# 9no"#edge *ecause: (1) a document authored *$ )apster
co.'ounder &ean /ar9er mentioned Ithe need to remain ignorant o' usersC rea# names and
5/ addresses Psince the$ are e8changing pirated musicCJ= and (2) the 4ecording 5ndustr$
(ssociation o' (merica (I45((J) in'ormed )apster o' more than 12,000 in'ringing 'i#es,
some o' "hich are sti## avai#a*#e. 114 F. &upp. 2d at 91:. ,he district court 'ound
constructive 9no"#edge *ecause: (a) )apster e8ecutives have recording industr$
e8perience= (*) the$ have en'orced inte##ectua# propert$ rights in other instances= (c)
)apster e8ecutives have do"n#oaded cop$righted songs 'rom the s$stem= and (d) the$
have promoted the site "ith Iscreen shots #isting in'ringing 'i#es.J 5d. at 919. o' direct
in'ringement. )apster c#aims that it is neverthe#ess protected 'rom contri*utor$ #ia*i#it$
*$ the teaching o' &on$ Corp. v. %niversa# Cit$ &tudios, 5nc., 4?4 %.&. 41A (19:4). @e
disagree. @e o*serve that )apsterCs actua#, speci'ic 9no"#edge o' direct in'ringement
renders &on$Cs ho#ding o' #imited assistance to )apster. @e are compe##ed to ma9e a
c#ear distinction *et"een the architecture o' the )apster s$stem and )apsterCs conduct in
re#ation to the operationa# capacit$ o' the s$stem.
,he &on$ Court re'used to ho#d the manu'acturer and retai#ers o' video tape recorders
#ia*#e 'or contri*utor$ in'ringement despite evidence that such machines cou#d *e and
"ere used to in'ringe p#ainti''sC cop$righted te#evision sho"s. &on$ stated that i' #ia*i#it$
Iis to *e imposed on petitioners in this case, it must rest on the 'act that the$ have so#d
e0uipment "ith constructive 9no"#edge o' the 'act that their customers ma$ use that
e0uipment to ma9e unauthori3ed copies o' cop$righted materia#.J 5d. at 439 (emphasis
added). ,he &on$ Court dec#ined to impute the re0uisite #eve# o' 9no"#edge "here the
de'endants made and so#d e0uipment capa*#e o' *oth in'ringing and Isu*stantia#
nonin'ringing uses.J 5d. at 442 (adopting a modi'ied Istap#e artic#e o' commerceJ
doctrine 'rom patent #a"). &ee a#so %niversa# Cit$ &tudios, 5nc. v. &on$ Corp., 4:0 F.
&upp. 429, 479 (C.<. Ca#. 19A9) (I,his court agrees "ith de'endants that their 9no"#edge
"as insu''icient to ma9e them contri*utor$ in'ringers.J), revCd, ?79 F.2d 9?3 (9th Cir.
19:1), revCd, 4?4 %.&. 41A (19:4)= (#'red C. Sen, 5nternet &ervice /rovider Eia*i#it$ 'or
&u*scri*er Cop$right 5n'ringement, 6nterprise Eia*i#it$, and the First (mendment, ::
Feo. E.J. 1:33, 1:A4 K 1:93 n.210 (2000) (suggesting that, a'ter &on$, most 5nternet
service providers #ac9 Ithe re0uisite #eve# o' 9no"#edgeJ 'or the imposition o'
contri*utor$ #ia*i#it$).
@e are *ound to 'o##o" &on$, and "i## not impute the re0uisite #eve# o' 9no"#edge to
)apster mere#$ *ecause peer.to.peer 'i#e sharing techno#og$ ma$ *e used to in'ringe
p#ainti''sC cop$rights. &ee 4?4 %.&. at 43? (re-ecting argument that mere#$ supp#$ing the
IPmeansC to accomp#ish an in'ringing activit$J #eads to imposition o' #ia*i#it$). @e depart
'rom the reasoning o' the district court that )apster 'ai#ed to demonstrate that its s$stem
is capa*#e o' commercia##$ signi'icant nonin'ringing uses. &ee )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d
at 91?, 91A.1:. ,he district court improper#$ con'ined the use ana#$sis to current uses,
ignoring the s$stemCs capa*i#ities. &ee genera##$ &on$, 4?4 %.&. at 442.43 ('raming
in0uir$ as "hether the video tape recorder is Icapa*#e o' commercia##$ signi'icant
nonin'ringing usesJ) (emphasis added). Conse0uent#$, the district court p#aced undue
"eight on the proportion o' current in'ringing use as compared to current and 'uture
nonin'ringing use. &ee genera##$ Bau#t Corp. v. Uuaid &o't"are Etd., :4A F.2d 277, 2?4.
?A (7th Cir. 199A) (sing#e nonin'ringing use imp#icated &on$). )onethe#ess, "hether "e
might arrive at a di''erent resu#t is not the issue here. &ee &ports Form, 5nc. v. %nited
/ress 5ntC#, 5nc., ?:? F.2d A70, A72 (9th Cir. 19:2). ,he instant appea# occurs at an ear#$
point in the proceedings and Ithe 'u##$ deve#oped 'actua# record ma$ *e materia##$
di''erent 'rom that initia##$ *e'ore the district court . . . .J 5d. at A73. 4egard#ess o' the
num*er o' )apsterCs in'ringing versus nonin'ringing uses, the evidentiar$ record here
supported the district courtCs 'inding that p#ainti''s "ou#d #i9e#$ prevai# in esta*#ishing
that )apster 9ne" or had reason to 9no" o' its usersC in'ringement o' p#ainti''sC
cop$rights.
,his ana#$sis is simi#ar to that o' 4e#igious ,echno#og$ Center v. )etcom Gn.Eine
Communication &ervices, 5nc., "hich suggests that in an on#ine conte8t, evidence o'
actua# 9no"#edge o' speci'ic acts o' in'ringement is re0uired to ho#d a computer s$stem
operator #ia*#e 'or contri*utor$ cop$right in'ringement. 90A F. &upp. at 13A1. )etcom
considered the potentia# contri*utor$ cop$right #ia*i#it$ o' a computer *u##etin *oard
operator "hose s$stem supported the posting o' in'ringing materia#. 5d. at 13A4. ,he
court, in den$ing )etcomCs motion 'or summar$ -udgment o' nonin'ringement and
p#ainti''Cs motion 'or -udgment on the p#eadings, 'ound that a disputed issue o' 'act
e8isted as to "hether the operator had su''icient 9no"#edge o' in'ringing activit$. 5d. at
13A4.A7.
,he court determined that 'or the operator to have su''icient 9no"#edge, the cop$right
ho#der must Iprovide the necessar$ documentation to sho" there is #i9e#$ in'ringement.J
90A F. &upp. at 13A4= c'. Cu**$, 5nc. v. Compuserve, 5nc., AA? F. &upp. 137, 141
(&.<.).S. 1991) (recogni3ing that on#ine service provider does not and cannot e8amine
ever$ h$per#in9 'or potentia##$ de'amator$ materia#). 5' such documentation "as
provided, the court reasoned that )etcom "ou#d *e #ia*#e 'or contri*utor$ in'ringement
*ecause its 'ai#ure to remove the materia# Iand there*$ stop an in'ringing cop$ 'rom
*eing distri*uted "or#d"ide constitutes su*stantia# participationJ in distri*ution o'
cop$righted materia#. 5d.
@e agree that i' a computer s$stem operator #earns o' speci'ic in'ringing materia#
avai#a*#e on his s$stem and 'ai#s to purge such materia# 'rom the s$stem, the operator
9no"s o' and contri*utes to direct in'ringement. &ee )etcom, 90A F. &upp. at 13A4.
Converse#$, a*sent an$ speci'ic in'ormation "hich identi'ies in'ringing activit$, a
computer s$stem operator cannot *e #ia*#e 'or contri*utor$ in'ringement mere#$ *ecause
the structure o' the s$stem a##o"s 'or the e8change o' cop$righted materia#. &ee &on$,
4?4 %.&. at 43?, 442.43. ,o en-oin simp#$ *ecause a computer net"or9 a##o"s 'or
in'ringing use "ou#d, in our opinion, vio#ate &on$ and potentia##$ restrict activit$
unre#ated to in'ringing use.
@e neverthe#ess conc#ude that su''icient 9no"#edge e8ists to impose contri*utor$
#ia*i#it$ "hen #in9ed to demonstrated in'ringing use o' the )apster s$stem. &ee )apster,
114 F. &upp. 2d at 919 (I4e#igious ,echno#og$ Center "ou#d not mandate a
determination that )apster, 5nc. #ac9s the 9no"#edge re0uisite to contri*utor$
in'ringement.J). ,he record supports the district courtCs 'inding that )apster has actua#
9no"#edge that speci'ic in'ringing materia# is avai#a*#e using its s$stem, that it cou#d
*#oc9 access to the s$stem *$ supp#iers o' the in'ringing materia#, and that it 'ai#ed to
remove the materia#. &ee )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 91:, 920.21. (s stated *$ the
district court:
/#ainti''s! . . . demonstrate that de'endant had actua# notice o' direct
in'ringement *ecause the 45(( in'ormed it o' more than 12,000
in'ringing 'i#es. &ee Creighton 12M3M99 <ec., 68h. <. (#though )apster,
5nc. purported#$ terminated the users o''ering these 'i#es, the songs are sti##
avai#a*#e using the )apster service, as are the cop$righted "or9s "hich
the record compan$ p#ainti''s identi'ied in &chedu#es ( and 2 o' their
comp#aint. &ee Creighton &upp. <ec. // 3.4.
114 F. &upp. 2d at 91:.
2. 1ateria# Contri*ution
%nder the 'acts as 'ound *$ the district court, )apster materia##$ contri*utes to the
in'ringing activit$. 4e#$ing on Fonovisa, the district court conc#uded that I"!ithout the
support services de'endant provides, )apster users cou#d not 'ind and do"n#oad the
music the$ "ant "ith the ease o' "hich de'endant *oasts.J )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at
919.20 (I)apster is an integrated service designed to ena*#e users to #ocate and do"n#oad
1/3 music 'i#es.J). @e agree that )apster provides Ithe site and 'aci#itiesJ 'or direct
in'ringement. &ee Fonovisa, A? F.3d at 2?4= c'. )etcom, 90A F. &upp. at 13A2 (I)etcom
"i## *e #ia*#e 'or contri*utor$ in'ringement since its 'ai#ure to cance# a userCs! in'ringing
message and there*$ stop an in'ringing cop$ 'rom *eing distri*uted "or#d"ide
constitutes su*stantia# participation.J). ,he district court correct#$ app#ied the reasoning
in Fonovisa, and proper#$ 'ound that )apster materia##$ contri*utes to direct
in'ringement.
@e a''irm the district courtCs conc#usion that p#ainti''s have demonstrated a #i9e#ihood o'
success on the merits o' the contri*utor$ cop$right in'ringement c#aim. @e "i## address
the scope o' the in-unction in part B555 o' this opinion.
B
@e turn to the 0uestion "hether )apster engages in vicarious cop$right in'ringement.
Bicarious cop$right #ia*i#it$ is an Ioutgro"thJ o' respondeat superior. Fonovisa, A? F.3d
at 2?2. 5n the conte8t o' cop$right #a", vicarious #ia*i#it$ e8tends *e$ond an
emp#o$erMemp#o$ee re#ationship to cases in "hich a de'endant Ihas the right and a*i#it$
to supervise the in'ringing activit$ and a#so has a direct 'inancia# interest in such
activities.J 5d. (0uoting Fersh"in, 443 F.2d at 11?2)= see a#so /o#$gram 5ntC# /u*#Cg, 5nc.
v. )evadaM,5F, 5nc., :77 F. &upp. 1314, 1327.2? (<. 1ass. 1994) (descri*ing vicarious
#ia*i#it$ as a 'orm o' ris9 a##ocation).
2e'ore moving into this discussion, "e note that &on$Cs Istap#e artic#e o' commerceJ
ana#$sis has no app#ication to )apsterCs potentia# #ia*i#it$ 'or vicarious cop$right
in'ringement. &ee &on$, 4?4 %.&. at 434.437= see genera##$ (nne Diaring, Cop$right
5n'ringement 5ssues on the 5nternet, ?1A /E5M/at 477, 72: (&ept. 2, 2000) (indicating that
the Istap#e artic#e o' commerceJ doctrine Iprovides a de'ense on#$ to contri*utor$
in'ringement, not to vicarious in'ringementJ). ,he issues o' &on$Cs #ia*i#it$ under the
Idoctrines o' Pdirect in'ringementC and Pvicarious #ia*i#it$CJ "ere not *e'ore the &upreme
Court, a#though the Court recogni3ed that the I#ines *et"een direct in'ringement,
contri*utor$ in'ringement, and vicarious #ia*i#it$ are not c#ear#$ dra"n.J 5d. at 437 n.1A.
Conse0uent#$, "hen the &on$ Court used the term Ivicarious #ia*i#it$,J it did so *road#$
and outside o' a technica# ana#$sis o' the doctrine o' vicarious cop$right in'ringement. 5d.
at 437 (IB!icarious #ia*i#it$ is imposed in virtua##$ a## areas o' the #a", and the concept
o' contri*utor$ in'ringement is mere#$ a species o' the *roader pro*#em o' identi'$ing the
circumstances in "hich it is -ust to ho#d one individua# accounta*#e 'or the actions o'
another.J)= see a#so 2#ac9Cs Ea" <ictionar$ 92A (Ath ed. 1999) (de'ining Ivicarious
#ia*i#it$J in a manner simi#ar to the de'inition used in &on$).
(. Financia# 2ene'it
,he district court determined that p#ainti''s had demonstrated the$ "ou#d #i9e#$ succeed
in esta*#ishing that )apster has a direct 'inancia# interest in the in'ringing activit$.
)apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 921.22. @e agree. Financia# *ene'it e8ists "here the
avai#a*i#it$ o' in'ringing materia# Iacts as a Pdra"C 'or customers.J Fonovisa, A? F.3d at
2?3.?4 (stating that 'inancia# *ene'it ma$ *e sho"n I"here in'ringing per'ormances
enhance the attractiveness o' a venueJ). (mp#e evidence supports the district courtCs
'inding that )apsterCs 'uture revenue is direct#$ dependent upon Iincreases in user*ase.J
1ore users register "ith the )apster s$stem as the I0ua#it$ and 0uantit$ o' avai#a*#e
music increases.J 114 F. &upp. 2d at 902. @e conc#ude that the district court did not err
in determining that )apster 'inancia##$ *ene'its 'rom the avai#a*i#it$ o' protected "or9s
on its s$stem.
2. &upervision
,he district court determined that )apster has the right and a*i#it$ to supervise its usersC
conduct. )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 920.21 ('inding that )apsterCs representations to the
court regarding Iits improved methods o' *#oc9ing users a*out "hom rights ho#ders
comp#ain . . . is tantamount to an admission that de'endant can, and sometimes does,
po#ice its serviceJ). @e agree in part.
,he a*i#it$ to *#oc9 in'ringersC access to a particu#ar environment 'or an$ reason
"hatsoever is evidence o' the right and a*i#it$ to supervise. &ee Fonovisa, A? F.3d at 2?2
(ICherr$ (uction had the right to terminate vendors 'or an$ reason "hatsoever and
through that right had the a*i#it$ to contro# the activities o' vendors on the premises.J)=
c'. )etcom, 90A F. &upp. at 13A7.A? (indicating that p#ainti'' raised a genuine issue o'
'act regarding a*i#it$ to supervise *$ presenting evidence that an e#ectronic *u##etin *oard
service can suspend su*scri*erCs accounts). Dere, p#ainti''s have demonstrated that
)apster retains the right to contro# access to its s$stem. )apster has an e8press
reservation o' rights po#ic$, stating on its "e*site that it e8press#$ reserves the Iright to
re'use service and terminate accounts in its! discretion, inc#uding, *ut not #imited to, i'
)apster *e#ieves that user conduct vio#ates app#ica*#e #a" . . . or 'or an$ reason in
)apsterCs so#e discretion, "ith or "ithout cause.J
,o escape imposition o' vicarious #ia*i#it$, the reserved right to po#ice must *e e8ercised
to its 'u##est e8tent. ,urning a *#ind e$e to detecta*#e acts o' in'ringement 'or the sa9e o'
pro'it gives rise to #ia*i#it$. &ee, e.g., Fonovisa, A? F.3d at 2?1 (I,here is no dispute 'or
the purposes o' this appea# that Cherr$ (uction and its operators "ere a"are that vendors
in their s"ap meets "ere se##ing counter'eit recordings.J)= see a#so Fersh"in, 443 F.2d at
11?1.?2 (citing &hapiro, 2ernstein K Co. v. D.E. Freene Co., 31? F.2d 304 (2d Cir.
19?3), 'or the proposition that I'ai#ure to po#ice the conduct o' the primar$ in'ringerJ
#eads to imposition o' vicarious #ia*i#it$ 'or cop$right in'ringement).
,he district court correct#$ determined that )apster had the right and a*i#it$ to po#ice its
s$stem and 'ai#ed to e8ercise that right to prevent the e8change o' cop$righted materia#.
,he district court, ho"ever, 'ai#ed to recogni3e that the *oundaries o' the premises that
)apster Icontro#s and patro#sJ are #imited. &ee, e.g., Fonovisa, A? F.2d at 2?2.?3 (in
addition to having the right to e8c#ude vendors, de'endant Icontro##ed and patro##edJ the
premises)= see a#so /o#$gram, :77 F. &upp. at 132:.29 (in addition to having the
contractua# right to remove e8hi*itors, trade sho" operator reserved the right to po#ice
during the sho" and had its Iemp#o$ees "a#9 the ais#es to ensure Pru#es comp#ianceCJ).
/ut di''erent#$, )apsterCs reserved Iright and a*i#it$J to po#ice is ca*ined *$ the s$stemCs
current architecture. (s sho"n *$ the record, the )apster s$stem does not IreadJ the
content o' inde8ed 'i#es, other than to chec9 that the$ are in the proper 1/3 'ormat.
)apster, ho"ever, has the a*i#it$ to #ocate in'ringing materia# #isted on its search indices,
and the right to terminate usersC access to the s$stem. ,he 'i#e name indices, there'ore,
are "ithin the IpremisesJ that )apster has the a*i#it$ to po#ice. @e recogni3e that the
'i#es are user.named and ma$ not match cop$righted materia# e8act#$ ('or e8amp#e, the
artist or song cou#d *e spe##ed "rong). For )apster to 'unction e''ective#$, ho"ever, 'i#e
names must reasona*#$ or rough#$ correspond to the materia# contained in the 'i#es,
other"ise no user cou#d ever #ocate an$ desired music. (s a practica# matter, )apster, its
users and the record compan$ p#ainti''s have e0ua# access to in'ringing materia# *$
emp#o$ing )apsterCs Isearch 'unction.J
Gur revie" o' the record re0uires us to accept the district courtCs conc#usion that
p#ainti''s have demonstrated a #i9e#ihood o' success on the merits o' the vicarious
cop$right in'ringement c#aim. )apsterCs 'ai#ure to po#ice the s$stemCs Ipremises,J
com*ined "ith a sho"ing that )apster 'inancia##$ *ene'its 'rom the continuing
avai#a*i#it$ o' in'ringing 'i#es on its s$stem, #eads to the imposition o' vicarious #ia*i#it$.
@e address the scope o' the in-unction in part B555 o' this opinion.
B5
@e ne8t address "hether )apster has asserted de'enses "hich "ou#d prec#ude the entr$
o' a pre#iminar$ in-unction.
)apster a##eges that t"o statutes insu#ate it 'rom #ia*i#it$. First, )apster asserts that its
users engage in actions protected *$ > 100: o' the (udio Dome 4ecording (ct o' 1992,
1A %.&.C. > 100:. &econd, )apster argues that its #ia*i#it$ 'or contri*utor$ and vicarious
in'ringement is #imited *$ the <igita# 1i##ennium Cop$right (ct, 1A %.&.C. > 712. @e
address the app#ication o' each statute in turn.
(. (udio Dome 4ecording (ct
,he statute states in part:
)o action ma$ *e *rought under this tit#e a##eging in'ringement o' cop$right *ased on the
manu'acture, importation, or distri*ution o' a digita# audio recording device, a digita#
audio recording medium, an ana#og recording device, or an ana#og recording medium, or
*ased on the noncommercia# use *$ a consumer o' such a device or medium 'or ma9ing
digita# musica# recordings or ana#og musica# recordings.
1A %.&.C. > 100: (emphases added). )apster contends that 1/3 'i#e e8change is the t$pe
o' Inoncommercia# useJ protected 'rom in'ringement actions *$ the statute. )apster
asserts it cannot *e secondari#$ #ia*#e 'or usersC nonactiona*#e e8change o' cop$righted
musica# recordings.
,he district court re-ected )apsterCs argument, stating that the (udio Dome 4ecording
(ct is Iirre#evantJ to the action *ecause: (1) p#ainti''s did not *ring c#aims under the
(udio Dome 4ecording (ct= and (2) the (udio Dome 4ecording (ct does not cover the
do"n#oading o' 1/3 'i#es. )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 91? n.19.
@e agree "ith the district court that the (udio Dome 4ecording (ct does not cover the
do"n#oading o' 1/3 'i#es to computer hard drives. First, Iu!nder the p#ain meaning o'
the (ctCs de'inition o' digita# audio recording devices, computers (and their hard drives)
are not digita# audio recording devices *ecause their Pprimar$ purposeC is not to ma9e
digita# audio copied recordings.J 4ecording 5ndus. (ssCn o' (m. v. <iamond 1u#timedia
&$s., 5nc., 1:0 F.3d 10A2, 10A: (9th Cir. 1999). &econd, not"ithstanding )apsterCs c#aim
that computers are Idigita# audio recording devices,J computers do not ma9e Idigita#
music recordingsJ as de'ined *$ the (udio Dome 4ecording (ct. 5d. at 10AA (citing &.
4ep. 102.294) (I,here are simp#$ no grounds in either the p#ain #anguage o' the
de'inition or in the #egis#ative histor$ 'or interpreting the term Pdigita# musica# recordingC
to inc#ude songs 'i8ed on computer hard drives.J).
2. <igita# 1i##ennium Cop$right (ct
)apster a#so interposes a statutor$ #imitation on #ia*i#it$ *$ asserting the protections o'
the Isa'e har*orJ 'rom cop$right in'ringement suits 'or I5nternet service providersJ
contained in the <igita# 1i##ennium Cop$right (ct, 1A %.&.C. > 712. &ee )apster, 114 F.
&upp. 2d at 919 n.24. ,he district court did not give this statutor$ #imitation an$ "eight
'avoring a denia# o' temporar$ in-unctive re#ie'. ,he court conc#uded that )apster Ihas
'ai#ed to persuade this court that su*section 712(d) she#ters contri*utor$ in'ringers.J 5d.
@e need not accept a *#an9et conc#usion that > 712 o' the <igita# 1i##ennium Cop$right
(ct "i## never protect secondar$ in'ringers. &ee &. 4ep. 107.190, at 40 (199:) (I,he
#imitations in su*sections (a) through (d) protect 0ua#i'$ing service providers 'rom
#ia*i#it$ 'or a## monetar$ re#ie' 'or direct, vicarious, and contri*utor$ in'ringement.J),
reprinted in 1e#vi##e 2. )immer K <avid )immer, )immer on Cop$right: Congressiona#
Committee 4eports on the <igita# 1i##ennium Cop$right (ct and Concurrent
(mendments (2000)= see a#so Char#es &. @right, (ctua# Bersus Eega# Contro#: 4eading
Bicarious Eia*i#it$ 'or Cop$right 5n'ringement 5nto the <igita# 1i##ennium Cop$right
(ct o' 199:, A7 @ash. E. 4ev. 1007, 102:.31 (Ju#$ 2000) (I,!he committee reports
#eave no dou*t that Congress intended to provide some re#ie' 'rom vicarious #ia*i#it$J).
@e do not agree that )apsterCs potentia# #ia*i#it$ 'or contri*utor$ and vicarious
in'ringement renders the <igita# 1i##ennium Cop$right (ct inapp#ica*#e per se. @e
instead recogni3e that this issue "i## *e more 'u##$ deve#oped at tria#. (t this stage o' the
#itigation, p#ainti''s raise serious 0uestions regarding )apsterCs a*i#it$ to o*tain she#ter
under > 712, and p#ainti''s a#so demonstrate that the *a#ance o' hardships tips in their
'avor. &ee /rudentia# 4ea# 6state, 204 F.3d at :A4= see a#so 1icro &tar v. Formgen, 5nc.
174 F.3d 110A, 1109 (9th Cir. 199:) (I( part$ see9ing a pre#iminar$ in-unction must
sho" . . . Pthat serious 0uestions going to the merits "ere raised and the *a#ance o'
hardships tips sharp#$ in its 'avor.CJ).
/#ainti''s have raised and continue to raise signi'icant 0uestions under this statute,
inc#uding: (1) "hether )apster is an 5nternet service provider as de'ined *$ 1A %.&.C. >
712(d)= (2) "hether cop$right o"ners must give a service provider Io''icia#J notice o'
in'ringing activit$ in order 'or it to have 9no"#edge or a"areness o' in'ringing activit$ on
its s$stem= and (3) "hether )apster comp#ies "ith > 712(i), "hich re0uires a service
provider to time#$ esta*#ish a detai#ed cop$right comp#iance po#ic$. &ee (K1 4ecords,
5nc. v. )apster, 5nc., )o. 99.071:3, 2000 @E 7A313? ().<. Ca#. 1a$ 12, 2000) (den$ing
summar$ -udgment to )apster under a di''erent su*section o' the <igita# 1i##ennium
Cop$right (ct, > 712(a)).
,he district court considered amp#e evidence to support its determination that the *a#ance
o' hardships tips in p#ainti''sC 'avor:
(n$ destruction o' )apster, 5nc. *$ a pre#iminar$ in-unction is specu#ative compared to
the statistica# evidence o' massive, unauthori3ed do"n#oading and up#oading o'
p#ainti''sC cop$righted "or9sQas man$ as 10,000 'i#es per second *$ de'endantCs o"n
admission. &ee Tess#er <ec. R 29. ,he court has ever$ reason to *e#ieve that, "ithout a
pre#iminar$ in-unction, these num*ers "i## mushroom as )apster users, and ne"comers
attracted *$ the pu*#icit$, scram*#e to o*tain as much 'ree music as possi*#e *e'ore tria#.
114 F. &upp. 2d at 92?.
B55
)apster contends that even i' the district courtCs pre#iminar$ determinations that it is
#ia*#e 'or 'aci#itating cop$right in'ringement are correct, the district court improper#$
re-ected va#id a''irmative de'enses o' "aiver, imp#ied #icense and cop$right misuse. @e
address the de'enses in turn.
(. @aiver
I@aiver is the intentiona# re#in0uishment o' a 9no"n right "ith 9no"#edge o' its
e8istence and the intent to re#in0uish it.J %nited &tates v. Ting Features 6ntmCt, 5nc., :43
F.2d 394, 399 (9th Cir. 19::). 5n cop$right, "aiver or a*andonment o' cop$right Ioccurs
on#$ i' there is an intent *$ the cop$right proprietor to surrender rights in his "or9.J 4
1e#vi##e 2. )immer K <avid )immer, )immer Gn Cop$right R 13.0? (2000)= see a#so
1icro &tar v. Formgen, 5nc., 174 F.3d 110A, 1114 (9th Cir. 199:) (discussing
a*andonment).
)apster argues that the district court erred in 'inding that p#ainti''s 9no"ing#$ provided
consumers "ith techno#og$ designed to cop$ and distri*ute 1/3 'i#es over the 5nternet
and, thus, "aived an$ #ega# authorit$ to e8ercise e8c#usive contro# over creation and
distri*ution o' 1/3 'i#es. ,he district court, ho"ever, "as not convinced Ithat the record
companies created the monster that is no" devouring their inte##ectua# propert$ rights.J
)apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d at 924. @e 'ind no error in the district courtCs 'inding that Iin
hastening the pro#i'eration o' 1/3 'i#es, p#ainti''s did nothing! more than see9 partners
'or their commercia# do"n#oading ventures and deve#op music p#a$ers 'or 'i#es the$
p#anned to se## over the 5nternet.J 5d. )apster additiona##$ asserts that the district court
improper#$ re'used to a##o" additiona# discover$ into a''irmative de'enses and a#so
erroneous#$ 'ai#ed to ho#d an evidentiar$ hearing. ,he denia# o' an evidentiar$ hearing is
revie"ed 'or a*use o' discretion, Tennea##$ v. Eungren, 9?A F.2d 329, 337 (9th Cir.
1992), as is the courtCs decision to den$ 'urther discover$. &ee &a*#an v. <epCt o'
Finance, :7? F.2d 131A, 1321 (9th Cir. 19::) (stating that decision to den$ discover$ "i##
not *e distur*ed e8cept upon a c#ear sho"ing Ithat the denia# o' discover$ resu#ts in
actua# and su*stantia# pre-udiceJ). @e conc#ude that the court did not a*use its discretion
in den$ing 'urther discover$ and re'using to conduct an evidentiar$ hearing.
2. 5mp#ied Eicense
)apster a#so argues that p#ainti''s granted the compan$ an imp#ied #icense *$
encouraging 1/3 'i#e e8change over the 5nternet. Courts have 'ound imp#ied #icenses
on#$ in ;narro"; circumstances "here one part$ ;created a "or9 at the other+s! re0uest
and handed it over, intending that the other! cop$ and distri*ute it.; &mithT#ine
2eecham Consumer Dea#thcare, E./. v. @atson /harms., 5nc., 211 F.3d 21, 27 (2d Cir.
2000) (0uoting 6''ects (ssocs., 5nc. v. Cohen, 90: F.2d 777, 77: (9th Cir. 1990)), cert.
denied, 121 &. Ct. 1A3 (2000). ,he district court o*served that no evidence e8ists to
support this de'ense: Iindeed, the 45(( gave de'endant e8press notice that it o*-ected to
the avai#a*i#it$ o' its mem*ersC cop$righted music on )apster.J )apster, 114 F. &upp. 2d
at 924.27. ,he record supports this conc#usion.
C. 1isuse
,he de'ense o' cop$right misuse 'or*ids a cop$right ho#der 'rom Isecuring! an e8c#usive
right or #imited monopo#$ not granted *$ the Cop$right G''ice.J Easercom* (m., 5nc. v.
4e$no#ds, 911 F.2d 9A0, 9AA.A9 (4th Cir. 1990), 0uoted in /ractice 1gmt. 5n'o. Corp. v.
(merican 1ed. (ssCn, 121 F.3d 71?, 720 (9th Cir.), amended *$ 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir.
199A). )apster a##eges that on#ine distri*ution is not "ithin the cop$right monopo#$.
(ccording to )apster, p#ainti''s have co##uded to Iuse their cop$rights to e8tend their
contro# to on#ine distri*utions.J
@e 'ind no error in the district courtCs pre#iminar$ re-ection o' this a''irmative de'ense.
,he misuse de'ense prevents cop$right ho#ders 'rom #everaging their #imited monopo#$ to
a##o" them contro# o' areas outside the monopo#$. &ee Easercom*, 911 F.2d 9A0 at 9A?.
AA= see a#so 4e#igious ,ech. Ctr. v. Eerma, )o. 97.110A(, 199? @E ?33131, at O11
(6.<. Ba. Gct. 4, 199?) (#isting circumstances "hich indicate improper #everage). ,he
district court correct#$ stated that Imost o' the casesJ that recogni3e the a''irmative
de'ense o' cop$right misuse invo#ve undu#$ restrictive #icensing schemes. &ee )apster,
114 F. &upp. 2d at 923= see a#so Easercom*, 911 F.2d at 9A3 (stating that Ia misuse o'
cop$right de'ense is inherent in the #a" o' cop$rightJ). @e have a#so suggested, ho"ever,
that a uni#atera# re'usa# to #icense a cop$right ma$ constitute "rong'u# e8c#usionar$
conduct giving rise to a c#aim o' misuse, *ut assume that the Idesire to e8c#ude others . . .
is a presumptive#$ va#id *usiness -usti'ication 'or an$ immediate harm to consumers.J
&ee 5mage ,ech. &ervs. v. 6astman Toda9 Co., 127 F.3d 1197, 121: (9th Cir. 199A). 2ut
see 5ntergraph Corp. v. 5nte# Corp., 197 F.3d 134?, 13?2 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (I1!ar9et
po"er does not Pimpose on the inte##ectua# propert$ o"ner an o*#igation to #icense the use
o' that propert$ to others.CJ (0uoting %nited &tates <epCt o' Justice K Fed. ,rade
CommCn, (ntitrust Fuide#ines 'or the Eicensing o' 5nte##ectua# /ropert$ 4 (1997)). ,here
is no evidence here that p#ainti''s see9 to contro# areas outside o' their grant o' monopo#$.
4ather, p#ainti''s see9 to contro# reproduction and distri*ution o' their cop$righted "or9s,
e8c#usive rights o' cop$right ho#ders. 1A %.&.C. > 10?= see a#so, e.g., %1F 4ecordings,
92 F. &upp. 2d at 371 (I( cop$right ho#der+s! Pe8c#usiveC rights, derived 'rom the
Constitution and the Cop$right (ct, inc#ude the right, "ithin *road #imits, to cur* the
deve#opment o' such a derivative mar9et *$ re'using to #icense a cop$righted "or9 or *$
doing so on#$ on terms the cop$right o"ner 'inds accepta*#e.J). ,hat the cop$righted
"or9s are transmitted in another mediumQ1/3 'ormat rather than audio C<Qhas no
*earing on our ana#$sis. &ee id. at 371 ('inding that reproduction o' audio C< into 1/3
'ormat does not Itrans'ormJ the "or9).
B555
,he district court correct#$ recogni3ed that a pre#iminar$ in-unction against )apsterCs
participation in cop$right in'ringement is not on#$ "arranted *ut re0uired. @e *e#ieve,
ho"ever, that the scope o' the in-unction needs modi'ication in #ight o' our opinion.
&peci'ica##$, "e reiterate that contri*utor$ #ia*i#it$ ma$ potentia##$ *e imposed on#$ to
the e8tent that )apster: (1) receives reasona*#e 9no"#edge o' speci'ic in'ringing 'i#es
"ith cop$righted musica# compositions and sound recordings= (2) 9no"s or shou#d 9no"
that such 'i#es are avai#a*#e on the )apster s$stem= and (3) 'ai#s to act to prevent vira#
distri*ution o' the "or9s. &ee )etcom, 90A F. &upp. at 13A4.A7. ,he mere e8istence o'
the )apster s$stem, a*sent actua# notice and )apsterCs demonstrated 'ai#ure to remove
the o''ending materia#, is insu''icient to impose contri*utor$ #ia*i#it$. &ee &on$, 4?4 %.&.
at 442.43.
Converse#$, )apster ma$ *e vicarious#$ #ia*#e "hen it 'ai#s to a''irmative#$ use its a*i#it$
to patro# its s$stem and prec#ude access to potentia##$ in'ringing 'i#es #isted in its search
inde8. )apster has *oth the a*i#it$ to use its search 'unction to identi'$ in'ringing musica#
recordings and the right to *ar participation o' users "ho engage in the transmission o'
in'ringing 'i#es.
,he pre#iminar$ in-unction "hich "e sta$ed is over*road *ecause it p#aces on )apster the
entire *urden o' ensuring that no Icop$ing, do"n#oading, up#oading, transmitting, or
distri*utingJ o' p#ainti''sC "or9s occur on the s$stem. (s stated, "e p#ace the *urden on
p#ainti''s to provide notice to )apster o' cop$righted "or9s and 'i#es containing such
"or9s avai#a*#e on the )apster s$stem *e'ore )apster has the dut$ to disa*#e access to
the o''ending content. )apster, ho"ever, a#so *ears the *urden o' po#icing the s$stem
"ithin the #imits o' the s$stem. Dere, "e recogni3e that this is not an e8act science in that
the 'i#es are user named. 5n cra'ting the in-unction on remand, the district court shou#d
recogni3e that )apsterCs s$stem does not current#$ appear to a##o" )apster access to
usersC 1/3 'i#es.
2ased on our decision to remand, )apsterCs additiona# arguments on appea# going to the
scope o' the in-unction need not *e addressed. @e, ho"ever, *rie'#$ address )apsterCs
First (mendment argument so that it is not reasserted on remand. )apster contends that
the present in-unction vio#ates the First (mendment *ecause it is *roader than necessar$.
,he compan$ asserts t"o distinct 'ree speech rights: (1) its right to pu*#ish a Idirector$J
(here, the search inde8) and (2) its usersC right to e8change in'ormation. @e note that
First (mendment concerns in cop$right are a##a$ed *$ the presence o' the 'air use
doctrine. &ee 1A %.&.C. > 10A= see genera##$ )ihon Tei3ai &him*un v. Com#ine 2usiness
<ata, 5nc., 1?? F.3d ?7, A4 (2d Cir. 1999)= )etcom, 923 F. &upp. at 127: (stating that the
Cop$right (ct *a#ances First (mendment concerns "ith the rights o' cop$right ho#ders).
,here "as a pre#iminar$ determination here that )apster users are not 'air users. %ses o'
cop$righted materia# that are not 'air uses are right'u##$ en-oined. &ee <r. &euss 6nters. v.
/enguin 2oo9s %&(, 5nc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1403 (9th Cir. 199A) (re-ecting de'endantsC
c#aim that in-unction "ou#d constitute a prior restraint in vio#ation o' the First
(mendment).
5V
@e address )apsterCs remaining arguments: (1) that the court erred in setting a L7 mi##ion
*ond, and (2) that the district court shou#d have imposed a constructive ro$a#t$ pa$ment
structure in #ieu o' an in-unction.
(. 2ond
)apster argues that the L7 mi##ion *ond is insu''icient *ecause the compan$Cs va#ue is
*et"een L1.7 and L2 *i##ion. @e revie" o*-ections to the amount o' a *ond 'or a*use o'
discretion. @a#c3a9 v. 6/E /ro#ong, 5nc., 19: F.3d A27 (9th Cir. 1999).
@e are re#uctant to dramatica##$ raise *ond amounts on appea#. &ee Fo,o.com, 5nc. v.
,he @a#t <isne$ Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1211 (9th Cir. 2000)= see a#so Fed. 4. Civ. /. ?7(c).
,he district court considered competing evidence o' )apsterCs va#ue and the de#eterious
e''ect that an$ in-unction "ou#d have upon the )apster s$stem. @e cannot sa$ that Judge
/ate# a*used her discretion "hen she 'i8ed the pena# sum re0uired 'or the *ond.
2. 4o$a#ties
)apster contends that the district court shou#d have imposed a monetar$ pena#t$ *$ "a$
o' a compu#sor$ ro$a#t$ in p#ace o' an in-unction. @e are as9ed to do "hat the district
court re'used.
)apster te##s us that I"here great pu*#ic in-ur$ "ou#d *e "or9ed *$ an in-unction, the
courts might . . . a"ard damages or a continuing ro$a#t$ instead o' an in-unction in such
specia# circumstances.J (*end v. 1C(, 5nc., :?3 F.2d 14?7, 14A9 (9th Cir. 19::)
(0uoting 3 1e#vi##e 2. )immer K <avid )immer, )immer Gn Cop$right > 14.0?2!
(19::)), a''Cd, 497 %.&. 20A (1990). @e are at a tota# #oss to 'ind an$ Ispecia#
circumstancesJ simp#$ *ecause this case re0uires us to app#$ "e##.esta*#ished doctrines
o' cop$right #a" to a ne" techno#og$. )either do "e agree "ith )apster that an
in-unction "ou#d cause Igreat pu*#ic in-ur$.J Further, "e narro"#$ construe an$
suggestion that compu#sor$ ro$a#ties are appropriate in this conte8t *ecause Congress has
argua*#$ #imited the app#ication o' compu#sor$ ro$a#ties to speci'ic circumstances, none
o' "hich are present here. &ee 1A %.&.C. > 117.
,he Cop$right (ct provides 'or various sanctions 'or in'ringers. &ee, e.g., 1A %.&.C. >>
702 (in-unctions)= 704 (damages)= and 70? (crimina# pena#ties)= see a#so 1: %.&.C. >
2319( (crimina# pena#ties 'or the unauthori3ed 'i8ation o' and tra''ic9ing in sound
recordings and music videos o' #ive musica# per'ormances). ,hese statutor$ sanctions
represent a more than ade0uate #egis#ative so#ution to the pro*#em created *$ cop$right
in'ringement.
5mposing a compu#sor$ ro$a#t$ pa$ment schedu#e "ou#d give )apster an Ieas$ outJ o'
this case. 5' such ro$a#ties "ere imposed, )apster "ou#d avoid pena#ties 'or an$ 'uture
vio#ation o' an in-unction, statutor$ cop$right damages and an$ possi*#e crimina#
pena#ties 'or continuing in'ringement. ,he ro$a#t$ structure "ou#d a#so grant )apster the
#u8ur$ o' either choosing to continue and pa$ ro$a#ties or shut do"n. Gn the other hand,
the "ronged parties "ou#d *e 'orced to do *usiness "ith a compan$ that pro'its 'rom the
"rong'u# use o' inte##ectua# properties. /#ainti''s "ou#d #ose the po"er to contro# their
inte##ectua# propert$: the$ cou#d not ma9e a *usiness decision not to #icense their propert$
to )apster, and, in the event the$ p#anned to do *usiness "ith )apster, compu#sor$
ro$a#ties "ou#d ta9e a"a$ the cop$right ho#dersC a*i#it$ to negotiate the terms o' an$
contractua# arrangement.V
@e a''irm in part, reverse in part and remand.
@e direct that the pre#iminar$ in-unction 'ashioned *$ the district court prior to this
appea# sha## remain sta$ed unti# it is modi'ied *$ the district court to con'orm to the
re0uirements o' this opinion. @e order a partia# remand o' this case on the date o' the
'i#ing o' this opinion 'or the #imited purpose o' permitting the district court to proceed
"ith the sett#ement and entr$ o' the modi'ied pre#iminar$ in-unction.
6ven though the pre#iminar$ in-unction re0uires modi'ication, appe##ees have
su*stantia##$ and primari#$ prevai#ed on appea#. (ppe##ees sha## recover their statutor$
costs on appea#. &ee Fed. 4. (pp. /. 39(a)(4) (Ii!' a -udgment is a''irmed in part,
reversed in part, modi'ied, or vacated, costs are ta8ed on#$ as the court orders.J).
(FF5416< 5) /(4,, 46B64&6< 5) /(4, ()< 461()<6<.
CG%)&6E E5&,5)F
<avid 2oies, Jonathan &chi##er and 4o*ert &i#ver, 2oies, &chi##er K F#e8ner, (rmon9,
)e" Sor9, Eaurence F. /u#gram, <avid E. Da$es, <anie# Johnson, Jr. and <arr$# 1.
@oo, Fen"ic9 K @est, /a#o (#to, Ca#i'ornia, 'or de'endant.appe##ant.
4usse## J. Frac9man, Feorge 1. 2or9o"s9i, Je''re$ <. Fo#dman, 4o$ E. &hu#ts and
/eter 2. Fe#*#um, 1itche##, &i#*er*erg K Tnupp, Eos (nge#es, Ca#i'ornia= Care$ 4.
4amos, /au#, @eiss, 4i'9ind, @harton K Farrison, )e" Sor9, )e" Sor9, 'or p#ainti''s.
appe##ees.
Dannah 2ent#e$, &an (nse#mo, Ca#i'ornia, 'or amicus Casanova 4ecords.
(ndre" /. 2ridges, @i#son, &onsini, Foodrich K 4osati, /a#o (#to, Ca#i'ornia, 'or
amicus <igita# 1edia (ssociation.
&cott 6. 2ain, @i#e$, 4ein K Fie#ding, @ashington, <.C., 'or amici (d Doc Cop$right
Coa#ition= Commercia# 5nternet 68change= Computer K Communications 5ndustr$
(ssociation= 5n'ormation ,echno#og$ (ssociation o' (merica= )etcoa#ition.com= %nited
&tates 5nternet 5ndustr$ (ssociation, and %nited &tates ,e#ecommunications (ssociation.
&cott 4. 1c5ntosh, Civi# <ivision, <epartment o' Justice, @ashington, <.C., 'or amicus
%nited &tates.
(nn 2ric9, &an Francisco, Ca#i'ornia, 'or amici (merican Civi# Ei*erties %nion and the
(merican Civi# Ei*erties %nion o' )orthern Ca#i'ornia.
Judith 2. Jennison, /er9ins Coie, &an Francisco, Ca#i'ornia, 'or amicus &cour, 5nc.
4a#ph Gman, <echert, /rice K 4hoads, @ashington, <.C., as amicus.
Christopher ,a$*ac9, Uuinn, 6manue#, %r0uhart, G#iver K Dedges, Eos (nge#es,
Ca#i'ornia, 'or amicus )ationa# (cadem$ o' 4ecording (rts K &ciences.
6. 6d"ard 2ruce, Covington K 2ur#ing, @ashington, <.C., 'or amicus 2usiness
&o't"are (##iance.
Tevin ,. 2aine, @i##iams K Conno##$, @ashington, <.C., 'or amici 1otion /icture
(ssociation o' (merica, 5nc., &o't"are K 5n'ormation 5ndustr$ (ssociation, (merican
Fi#m 1ar9eting (ssociation, (ssociation o' (merican /u*#ishers, (merican &ociet$ o'
1edia /hotographers, /ro'essiona# /hotographers (ssociation, Fraphic (rtists Fui#d,
5nteractive <igita# &o't"are (ssociation, (merican &ociet$ o' Composers, (uthors and
/u*#ishers, 2roadcast 1usic, 5nc., /roducers Fui#d o' (merica, <irectors Fui#d o'
(merica, 5nc., @riters Fui#d o' (merica, @est, 5nc., (merican Federation o' 1usicians
o' the %nited &tates and Canada, 4eed 6#sevier, 5nc., (merican Federation o' ,e#evision
and 4adio (rtists, G''ice o' the Commissioner o' 2ase*a##, &ong"riters Fui#d o'
(merica, and (m&ong, 5nc.= Joe# 1. Eitvin, )e" Sor9, )e" Sor9, 'or amicus )ationa#
2as9et*a## (ssociation.
&a#vatore (. 4omano, &e$'arth, &ha", @ashington, <.C., 'or amici )ationa# (ssociation
o' 4ecording 1erchandisers, 5nc. and Bideo &o't"are <ea#ers (ssociation.
6r"in Chemerins9$, %niversit$ o' &outhern Ca#i'ornia &choo# o' Ea", Eos (nge#es,
Ca#i'ornia, 'or amicus Ea" /ro'essors 6r"in Chemerins9$, Tenneth E. Tarst, &teven
&hi''rin, 4odne$ (. &mo##a and 1arc$ &trauss.
2arr$ 5. &#otnic9, 4ichards K GC)ei#, )e" Sor9, )e" Sor9, 'or amicus (ssociation 'or
5ndependent 1usic.
1orton <avid Fo#d*erg, Co"an, Eie*o"it3 K Eatman, )e" Sor9, )e" Sor9, 'or amici
(##iance 6ntertainment Corp., (udi*#e 5nc., 2#ue &pi9e, 5nc., ,he C#andestine Froup,
5nc., <igimarc Corporation, <igita# 1edia on <emand, 5nc., Fu##(udio Corporation,
5nter,rust ,echno#ogies Corporation, Ga9 ,echno#og$, 5nc., 4eciproca#, 5nc., 4io/ort,
5nc., 4/T &ecure1edia 5nc., Berance Corporation, and B)% %&(, 5nc.
4ichie ,. ,homas, &0uire, &anders K <empse$, @ashington, <.C., 'or amici Consumer
6#ectronics (ssociation, <igita# Future Coa#ition, and Computer K Communications
5ndustr$ (ssociation.
Taren 2. ,ripp, Douston, ,e8as, 'or amici (ssociation o' (merican /h$sicians K
&urgeons, 5nc. and 6ag#e Forum 6ducation and Eega# <e'ense Fund.
/ro'essor Jessica Eitman, @a$ne &tate %niversit$ Ea" &choo#, <etroit, 1ichigan=
/ro'essor Teith (o9i, %niversit$ o' Gregon &choo# o' Ea"= /ro'essor (nn 2arto",
%niversit$ o' &outh Caro#ina &choo# o' Ea"= /ro'essor <an 2ur9, %niversit$ o'
1innesota= /ro'essor Ju#ie Cohen, Feorgeto"n %niversit$ &choo# o' Ea"= /ro'essors
Christine Daight Far#e$ and /eter Jas3i, @ashington Co##ege o' Ea", (merican
%niversit$= /ro'essor E$dia /a##as Eoren, Ee"is and C#ar9 Co##ege )orth"estern &choo#
o' Ea"= /ro'essor /ame#a &amue#son, 2oa#t Da## &choo# o' Ea", %niversit$ o' Ca#i'ornia
2er9e#e$= /ro'essor &hu*ha Fhosh, %niversit$ at 2u''a#o, &%)S= /ro'essors /au# J.
Dea#d, (##en /ost /ro'essor o' Ea", E. 4a$ /atterson, /ope 2roc9 /ro'essor o' Ea", and
Eaura ). Fasa"a$, %niversit$ o' Feorgia &choo# o' Ea"= /ro'essor 1ichae# 1adison,
%niversit$ o' /itts*urgh &choo# o' Ea"= /ro'essor 4uth G9edi-i, %niversit$ o' G9#ahoma
Ea" &choo#= (#'red C. Sen, (ssociate <ean 'or (cademic (''airs and /ro'essor o' Ea",
2oston Co##ege Ea" &choo#= /ro'essor <iame Himmerman, )e" Sor9 %niversit$ &choo#
o' Ea", and /ro'essor <ennis Tar-a#a, (ri3ona &tate %niversit$ Co##ege o' Ea", 'or
amicus Cop$right Ea" /ro'essors