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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

United States courts and judges Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.

Napster Ruling

Sorry if some people may consider "Chilling effect" as not NPOV, but I believe it is the correct word. However, the section does warrant citations supporting claims such as "frequently cited". I remember it was a popular issue for debate at the time (2001), and the problem of "illegal hyperlinks" continues to echo in circles of digital law (nearly all cases against BitTorrent trackers with .torrent hyperlinks to copyrighted data hinge on this precedent, rather than the newer argument of intent and inducement of MGM v. Grokster) through to today. User:71.246.25.54 / User:71.246.25.218 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "chilling effect" is particularly NPOV. I think that "Criticism" or "Impact" is a more unbiased header, and I'm planning to fix up this section and include citations and links to the amicus briefs filed on behalf of both sides. Agreatnotion (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarious Infringement

The article somewhat implies that Napster was held liable for contributory infringement only, but both district court and court of appeals decisions hold Napster, Inc. liable for vicarious infringement as well. From the court of appeals decision:

"Our review of the record requires us to accept the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the vicarious copyright infringement claim. Napster’s failure to police the system’s “premises,” combined with a showing that Napster financially benefits from the continuing availability of infringing files on its system, leads to the imposition of vicarious liability. " http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/0/c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument 201.37.185.130 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link to the decision is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.248.157 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class Assignment

I'm going to be working on this page for an IP Law class at UC Berkeley. I've already applied the COA infobox in place of the table that was there, and will be beefing the page up over the next two weeks. --Agreatnotion (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]