|
''A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.'', 239 F.3d 1004 (2001)〔''(A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster )'', 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)〕 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, holding that defendant, peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file-sharing. SINCE the case is referred to as A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, the full list of plaintiffs included a number of record companies, all members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).〔(List of RIAA member organizations ), RIAA.com〕 The plaintiffs in the District Court suit were:〔''(A&M Records, Inc. et. al. v. Napster )'' (No. C 99-5183 MHP No. C 00-0074 MHP), United States District Court for the Northern District of California, via CNET.com〕 *A&M Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group *Geffen Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group *Interscope Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group *Sony Music Entertainment *MCA Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group *Atlantic Records, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group *Island Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group *Motown Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group *Capitol Records, a subsidiary of EMI *LaFace Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment *BMG Music d/b/a The RCA Records Label, subsidiaries of Sony Music Entertainment *Universal Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group *Elektra Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group *Arista Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment *Sire Records Group, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group *Polygram Records, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group *Virgin Records America, a subsidiary of EMI *Warner Bros. Records, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, and Warner Music Group are known as the "big four" in the music industry.〔Linda Laban, ''(Music Companies: The Big Four Labels )'', Spinner (Oct. 15, 2009).〕 Of this list, only A&M, Geffen, Interscope, Sony, MCA, Atlantic, Island, and Motown are listed as plaintiffs on the appeal. Additionally, American songwriters and producers Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller are included on the Circuit Court appeal, representing the interests of "all others similarly situated."〔 ==Defendant== (詳細はShawn Fanning, then an 18-year-old freshman computer science student at Northeastern University.〔Spencer Ante, ''(Shawn Fanning's Struggle )'', BusinessWeek (May 1, 2000).〕 It provided a platform for users to access and download compressed digital music files, specifically MP3s, from other users' machines. Unlike many peer-to-peer services, however, Napster included a central server that indexed connected users and files available on their machines, creating a searchable list of music available across Napster's network. Napster's ease of use compared to other peer-to-peer services quickly made it a popular service for music enthusiasts to find and download digital song files for free.〔Janelle Brown, ''(MP3 free-for-all )'', Salon (Feb 3, 2000).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|