Riaa v. Napster: the Struggle to Protect Copyrights in the Internet Age

• Publication year: 2010

RIAA V. Napster: The Struggle to Protect Copyrights in the Internet Age

Russell P. Beets

Introduction

Copyrighted works are so fundamental to the nation's well-being that they are given explicit protection in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.[1] Over the years, copyright law and technology have been embroiled in constant battle. Consequently, Congress must constantly find a balance between encouraging creators of original work while aiding in the development of technologies to distribute those works.[2] Currently, the battle between technology and copyright law is taking place over the "Information Superhighway," or Internet.[3] While the Internet has expanded rapidly in the past few years, the law has been slow to preserve the protection of copyrighted works passing through the Internet.[4] The latest area to feel the effects of this struggle is the music industry.[5]

Prior to 1998, the Copyright Act of 1976[6] ("the Act") protected music by granting an automatic property right to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression."[7] One of the most significant changes in the music industry was the development of technology to digitize music onto compact discs.[8] Congress enacted the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA)[9] in response to the recording industry's fears that digital recording technology could be exploited by the home consumer.[10] With the advent of transferring digital audio files through the Internet, Congress enacted another piece of legislation, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998[11] (DMCA), in order to extend copyright protection to works transmitted digitally over the Internet.[12]

On December 6, 1999, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed suit against Napster, Inc. (Napster), alleging contributory and vicarious federal copyright infringement and related state law violations.[13] Napster, a small start-up Internet company, freely gives its MusicShare software to its subscribers so that they can download MP3 music files from other subscribers on the Napster system.[14] Napster allows the transfer of MP3 files by its subscribers over the Internet without payment, and claims that it "takes the frustration out of locating servers with MP3 files."[15] Napster argued that its business activities fell within a safe harbor exception to section 512 of the DMCA, which "exempts qualifying service providers from monetary liability for direct, vicarious, and contributory infringement and limits injunctive relief."[16] In addition, Napster asserted the affirmative defenses of fair use and substantial non-infringing use.[17] The district court did not agree and found for the plaintiffs, enjoining Napster from operating its service.[18] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Napster a last minute reprieve from the district court's injunctive order until it could hear the case.[19] The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling that Napster infringed RIAA's copyrighted material.[20] However, the court remanded the case to the district court to modify the preliminary injunction in accordance with its ruling.[21]

This Comment discusses the history of copyright law as applied to digitally recorded music and the Internet. Specifically, this work discusses how the district and circuit courts applied copyright law in the Napster case.[22]

I. Historical Developments

The basis of copyright law in the United States is Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.[23] Although the Constitution grants Congress the power to bestow limited exclusive rights to creators of intellectual property, Congress must maintain a balance between public and private interests.[24] The need for this balance is based on the theory that distribution of creative works is encouraged by the exclusive rights that accompany copyright protection.[25]

Congress codified the balance between private and public interests in the Copyright Act of 1976 ("the Act").[26] The Act grants authors of original works "certain exclusive rights, including the right to: reproduce such works; to prepare derivative works; to distribute copies . . . to perform or display the works publicly; and to perform sound recordings publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."[27] The Act also sets out the limitations to those exclusive rights, including duration, subject matter, scope, and causes of action.[28]

Most musical works involve multiple copyrights, including both the musical composition and the recording, which is a physical embodiment of a performance of the composition.[29] Individuals are directly liable for copyright infringement when they copy material protected by a valid copyright; however, the burden is on the copyright holder to prove the infringement.[30]

There are two defenses to direct copyright infringement: the common law fair use doctrine and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA).[31] Under the fair use doctrine, a defendant will not be liable if they can show that:

[The] use was reasonable based on: (1) the purpose and character of the use (i.e., the more commercial it is, the less fair); (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (i.e., the more creative it is and the less informational, the less fair); (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (4) the effect of unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant on the plaintiff's potential market for the work.[32]

The AHRA better defines the fair use doctrine, outlining that no lawsuit can be brought "alleging infringement of copyright based on the . . . noncommercial use by a consumer of [a digital audio recording] device or medium for making digital or analog musical recordings."[33]

The pivotal case concerning the fair use doctrine is Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.[34] Plaintiffs, Universal City Studios and Walt Disney Company, alleged that defendant Sony Corporation, the manufacturer of the Betamax videotape recorder, was liable for contributory copyright infringement and that home taping of copyrighted television programs violated Universal's and Disney's copyrights on these programs.[35] Sony argued the fair use doctrine as an affirmative defense, and the Supreme Court agreed, holding that home taping for private usage was fair use and did not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights.[36]

Following the Court's decision in Sony and the development of new digital recording techniques, artists feared that the ability to capture virtually perfect copies of their recordings would harm sales of legitimate recordings.[37] In response to these concerns, Congress enacted the AHRA.[38]

The AHRA has three main parts.[39] The first part states that no infringement action may be brought if use of the digital or analog recording or device is for noncommercial use.[40] The second part requires manufacturers and distributors of digital audio recording devices to give a percentage of the transfer cost to a royalty fund that is then distributed to copyright owners in order to offset their loss of revenue.[41] Last, the AHRA requires that each digital recording device carry the Serial Copy Management System, which prevents digital copies being made from the original digital copy.[42]

The AHRA never addressed the coming expansion of the Internet and this limitation became evident in the pivotal case of RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems.[43] The basis for the lawsuit was Diamond Multimedia's Rio, a portable MP3 player.[44] MP3 compression technology significantly decreases the size of computer music files, which are then downloaded off the Internet and transported with the Rio portable player.[45] RIAA sued Diamond for copyright infringement under several sections of the AHRA and sought to enjoin the manufacture and distribution of the Rio player.[46] The court refused to grant the injunction, stating that computer hard drives, to which the MP3 files were downloaded, were not primarily limited to making digital audio recordings and thus were not "digital audio recording devices" under the AHRA.[47] Furthermore, the court noted that the Rio player was for noncommercial, personal use and fell under the noninfringement provision of the AHRA.[48] The court confirmed a huge omission in the AHRA: if the files from portable MP3 players such as the Rio first pass through a computer hard drive, they are legal.[49]

In October 1998, Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which increased copyright protection for material online but also limited liability for Internet service providers found vicariously liable for copyright infringement.[50] Currently, the DMCA is the only law pertaining to Internet copyright infringement.[51] However, instead of protecting the copyright holder's interests, the DMCA merely protects service providers from liability when its users infringe copyright protected works.[52] The DMCA only protects the copyright holder "when the service provider is an active or knowing participant in the transmission of illegally pirated works."[53] These new copyrighted laws, as well as the old laws, were seriously tested in the first major Internet music copyright infringement case.[54]

II. Public opinion

Few people waited for the courts to rule before expressing their opinions on the Napster controversy.[55] Napster and similar outfits are usually viewed as either novel ways to share files or, conversely, as simple means to steal files.[56]

The groups supporting Napster are copyright law professors;[57] a physicians' association;[58] and musical artists as diverse as Chuck D (of Public Enemy),[59] Limp Bizkit,[60] Radiohead,[61] Marianne Faithful,[62] and the Offspring.[63]

Artists supporting the RIAA include Aimee Mann, Alanis Morissette, Lou Reed, and Scott Stapp (lead singer/lyricist of Creed).[64] Also, the United States Copyright Office and the United States Justice Department filed briefs siding...