## Facts

- Major record labels and music publishers owned copyrights in musical compositions and sound recordings widely available as MP3 files on Napster’s service.
- Napster distributed free software that let users identify and transfer MP3 files stored on other users’ computers.
- Users connected to Napster’s central servers, which maintained a searchable index of users’ available filenames; users then downloaded files directly from one another via peer-to-peer transfers.
- Plaintiffs alleged Napster users engaged in widespread unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music.
- Plaintiffs did not claim Napster directly copied or stored infringing MP3s; they sought secondary liability based on Napster’s knowledge of infringement and its role in organizing and facilitating exchanges.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Napster from facilitating unauthorized copying and distribution.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs were likely to prove direct copyright infringement by Napster users.
2. Whether Napster was likely contributorily liable because it knew of infringement and materially contributed to users’ infringing acts.
3. Whether Napster was likely vicariously liable because it could supervise infringement and obtained a direct financial benefit from it.
4. Whether Napster could avoid liability under the Sony “substantial noninfringing use” doctrine.
5. Whether Napster was likely protected by any DMCA safe harbor, particularly 17 U.S.C. § 512(a).
6. Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm and that the balance of hardships and public interest supported injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction against Napster.
- The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on claims of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.
- The court found extensive direct infringement by users through unauthorized copying and distribution of plaintiffs’ works.
- The court held Sony did not prevent preliminary relief given evidence of predominant infringing use and Napster’s knowledge and facilitation.
- The court concluded Napster was unlikely to qualify for DMCA safe-harbor protection, including § 512(a).
- The court found irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships for plaintiffs, and that the public interest supported an injunction.
- The injunction prohibited Napster from engaging in, or facilitating others in, unauthorized copying, uploading, downloading, transmitting, or distributing plaintiffs’ protected works.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory copyright infringement requires direct infringement by another plus the defendant’s knowledge of the infringing activity and inducement, causation, or material contribution to it.
- A service can materially contribute where it provides the “site and facilities” for infringement, including centralized indexing and search functions that enable users to locate infringing files.
- Vicarious copyright infringement requires (1) the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and (2) a direct financial benefit from the infringement; financial benefit may be shown by user attraction that increases a service’s value even without charging fees.
- The Sony doctrine does not bar secondary liability where the defendant has knowledge of infringement and provides targeted assistance that enables infringing activity, even if some lawful uses exist.
- DMCA § 512(a) protection is generally limited to passive conduit functions; a provider that does not itself transmit the infringing content and instead operates a facilitating index may fall outside § 512(a), and must also satisfy statutory conditions such as a reasonably implemented repeat-infringer policy.
- In copyright cases, a strong showing of likely success can support a finding of irreparable harm; continued large-scale unauthorized distribution supports injunctive relief, and hardship from being unable to continue infringing is not a cognizable defense.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily enjoined Napster after finding a strong likelihood that users directly infringed plaintiffs’ music copyrights and that Napster, through knowledge and centralized indexing that enabled file sharing, was likely liable for contributory and vicarious infringement; Sony and DMCA defenses did not defeat preliminary injunctive relief, and plaintiffs showed irreparable harm and equities favoring an injunction.


A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000)