The RIAA Strikes Back
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)has accused Napster of using "euphemisms like 'sharing' to avoid the real issue," in its response in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction against the Napster site.
Napster software allows users to share music files among themselves without paying any license or copyright fees.
The music industry has sought a preliminary injunction on the grounds that Napster has engaged in "contributory and vicarious" copyright infringement and because Napster is causing irreparable harm to the entire music industry.
Napster previously filed a lengthy brief with the court in response to the music industry's request for an injunction, essentially claiming that Napster's service is exempt from liability, and therefore it cannot be held liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.
The RIAA's reply brief, filed late Thursday afternoon, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco), agues that Napster's assertion that it is not liable for copyright infringement based on the provisions of the "Fair Use Doctrine" and the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), are "meritless."
"It is absolutely clear that the AHRA does not apply to Internet piracy, and no court has ever held that the wholesale copying and distribution of complete copyrighted works could be considered a fair use," the RIAA argues.
Newsbytes obtained a copy of the RIAA's brief in which the recording industry trade association tells the court, "Napster is a business that already claims a value in the billions, based overwhelmingly on the 'piracy' of millions of plaintiffs' copyrighted works. The truth is, the making and distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works by Napster users is not 'sharing' any more than stealing apples from a neighbor's tree is 'gardening.'"
Napster, in arguing that the court should not grant the RIAA's request for a preliminary injunction, has said that Napster users are sharing music files for their own personal, not commercial, use. Such personal sharing, Napster says, is "fair use" of the music files and protected under the provisions of the AHRA.
Napster has also said in its defense that, as long as a technology is "capable of substantial non-infringing uses," the provider of that technology cannot be held liable for copyright infringement, even where that technology may have encouraged infringing uses. This defense is based upon the Sony Betamax case that was finally decided by the United States Supreme Court.
The RIAA's reply brief says that Napster cannot avail itself of the Sony Betamax defense since a service, such as Napster's, which helps to facilitate a user's actions is not a product protected under the decision in that case. The RIAA also says that Napster cannot demonstrate that its service has "substantial non-infringing uses."
"We have a very strong case and we're very confident," Amy Weiss, the RIAA's senior vice president of public relations, told Newsbytes.
A hearing on the injunction request is scheduled for July 26 before US District Court Judge Marilyn H. Patel.
More information from the RIAA is available at http://www.riaa.com.
Napster maintains its Web site at http://www.napster.com.
Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com.