A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-16011.,No. 01-16308.,No. 01-15998.,No. 01-16003.,01-15998.,01-16308.,01-16003.,01-16011. |
| Citation | 284 F.3d 1091 |
| Parties | A&M RECORDS, INC., a corporation; Geffen Records, Inc., a corporation; Interscope Records, a general partnership; Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., a corporation; MCA Records, Inc., a corporation; Atlantic Recording Corporation; Island Records, Inc., a corporation; Motown Record Company, LP, a limited partnership; Capitol Records, Inc., a corporation; La Face Records, a joint venture; BMG Music d/b/a The RCA Records Label, a general partnership; Universal Records, Inc., a corporation; Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., a corporation; Arista Records, Inc., a corporation; Sire Records Group, Inc., a corporation; Polygram Records, Inc., a corporation; Virgin Records America, Inc., a corporation; Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NAPSTER, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Jerry Leiber, individually and doing business as Jerry Leiber Music; Mike Stoller, individually and doing business as Mike Stoller Music; Frank Music Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Napster, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. In re Napster, Inc., A&M Records, Inc., a corporation; Geffen Records, Inc., a corporation; Interscope Records, a general partnership; Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., a corporation; MCA Records, Inc., a corporation; Atlantic Recording Corporation, a corporation; Island Records, Inc., a corporation; Motown Record Company, L.P., a limited partnership; Capitol Records, Inc., a corporation; La Face Records, a joint venture; BMG Music d/b/a The RCA Records Label, a general partnership; Universal Records, Inc., a corporation; Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., a corporation; Arista Records, Inc., a corporation; Sire Records Group, Inc., a corporation; Polygram Records, Inc., a corporation; Virgin Records America, Inc., a corporation; Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a corporation; Andre Young; Metallica; Casanova Records; Jerry Leiber; Mike Stoller; Frank Music Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Tee Vee Toons; Matthew Katz; E/M Ventures; Creeping Death Music; Aftermath Entertainment; Emusic.Com, Inc.; The National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Plaintiffs, v. Napster, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Fred Drust; John Fanning; Hummer Winblad; Hank Barry; Bob Bozeman; Yosi Amram; Shawn Fanning, Defendants. In re Napster, Inc., A&M Records, Inc., a corporation; Geffen Records, Inc., a corporation; Interscope Records, a general partnership; Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., a corporation; MCA Records, Inc., a corporation; Atlantic Recording Corporation, a corporation; Island Records, Inc., a corporation; Motown Record Company, L.P., a limited partnership; Capitol Records, Inc., a corporation; La Face Records, a joint venture; BMG Music d/b/a The RCA Records Label, a general partnership; Universal Records, Inc., a corporation; Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., a corporation; Arista Records, Inc., a corporation; Sire Records Group, Inc., a corporation; Polygram Records, Inc., a corporation; Virgin Records America, Inc., a corporation; Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a corporation; Andre Young; Metallica; Casanova Records; Jerry Leiber; Mike Stoller; Frank Music Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Tee Vee Toons; Matthew Katz; E/M Ventures; Creeping Death Music; Aftermath Entertainment; Emusic.Com, Inc.; The National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Plaintiffs, v. Napster, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Fred Drust; John Fanning; Hummer Winblad; Hank Barry; Bob Bozeman; Yosi Amram; Shawn Fanning, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Russell J. Frackman, argued, George M. Borkowski, Peter B. Gelblum, Jeffrey D. Goldman, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for A & M Records, Inc. et al., plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees.
Carey R. Ramos, argued, Aidan Synnott, Michael C. Keats, Lewis E. Farberman, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY, Jeffrey G. Knowles, Keith Evans-Orville, Julia D. Greer, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, San Francisco, California, for Jerry Leiber et al., plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees.
Lawrence S. Robbins, argued, Roy T. Englert, Jr., Alan Untereiner, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, Washington, DC, Laurence F. Pulgram, David Hayes, Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA, Steven Holtzman, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, Steven M. Cohen, Kronish Lieb Weiner & Hellman LLP, New York, NY, Joseph W. Cotchett, Jr., Cotchett Pitre & Simon, Burlingame, CA, for Napster, Inc., defendant-appellee-cross-appellant.
Dale M. Cendali, Diana M. Torres, Elyssa M. Getreu, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for amici Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., American Film Marketing Association, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Broadcast Music, Inc., American Society of Media Photographers, Association of American Publishers, Business Software Alliance, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Jazz Journalists Association, Professional Photographers of America, and Software & Information Industry Association.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Marilyn H. Patel, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-99-5183-MHP, CV-00-0074-MHP, CV-00-1369-MHP.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, BEEZER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves challenges to a modified preliminary injunction entered by the district court on remand from a prior appeal, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.2001). At issue is the district court's order forcing Napster to disable its file transferring service until certain conditions are met to achieve full compliance with the modified preliminary injunction. We entered a temporary stay of the shut down order pending resolution of this appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We affirm both the district court's modified preliminary injunction and shut down order.
Plaintiffs' action against Napster claims contributory and vicarious copyright infringement stemming from Napster's peer-to-peer music file sharing service.1 In the prior interlocutory appeal, we affirmed the district court's decision to issue a preliminary injunction and reversed and remanded with instructions to modify the injunction's scope to reflect the limits of Napster's potential liability for vicarious and contributory infringement. Napster, 239 F.3d at 1027.
We now consider the district court's modified preliminary injunction, which obligates Napster to remove any user file from the system's music index if Napster has reasonable knowledge that the file contains plaintiffs' copyrighted works. Plaintiffs, in turn, must give Napster notice of specific infringing files. For each work sought to be protected, plaintiffs must provide the name of the performing artist, the title of the work, a certification of ownership, and the name(s) of one or more files that have been available on the Napster file index containing the protected copyrighted work. Napster then must continually search the index and block all files which contain that particular noticed work. Both parties are required to adopt reasonable measures to identify variations of the file name, or of the spelling of the titles or artists' names, of plaintiffs' identified protected works.
The district court carefully monitored Napster's compliance with the modified preliminary injunction. It required periodic reports from the parties and held several compliance hearings. The district court also appointed a technical advisor to assist in evaluating Napster's compliance.
Napster was able to prevent sharing of much of plaintiffs' noticed copyrighted works. Plaintiffs nonetheless were able to present evidence that infringement of noticed works still occurred in violation of the modified preliminary injunction. After three months of monitoring, the district court determined that Napster was not in satisfactory compliance with the modified preliminary injunction. The district court ordered Napster to disable its file transferring service until certain conditions were met and steps were taken to ensure maximum compliance.
The record company plaintiffs and the music producer plaintiffs appeal the modified preliminary injunction, and Napster cross-appeals.2 Napster also appeals the district court's shut down order.
We review de novo the legal premises underlying a preliminary injunction. Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996). Otherwise, we review for abuse of discretion the terms of a preliminary injunction. Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). "As long as the district court got the law right, it will not be reversed simply because [we] would have arrived at a different result if [we] had applied the law to the facts of the case." Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiffs challenge the requirement that they provide file names found on the Napster index that correspond to their copyrighted works before those works are entitled to protection. Plaintiffs argue that Napster should be required to search for and to block all files containing any protected copyrighted works, not just those works with which plaintiffs have been able to provide a corresponding file name. Napster, on the other hand, argues that the modified preliminary injunction's articulation of its duty to police is vague and fails to conform to the fair notice requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).
We are unpersuaded that the district court committed any error of law or abused its discretion. The notice requirement abides by our holding that plaintiffs bear the burden "to provide notice to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Center for Bio. Div. V. Marina Point Dev.
...Cir.2008), and we will here-after put page references to the published Opinion in parentheses. 15. See A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1098-99 (9th Cir.2002); Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th 16. Were we required to consider the merits of that order, it wo......
-
High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell
...of the injunction from the district court if they believe they have good cause to do so. See, e.g., A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir.2002). ...
-
Garcia v. Google, Inc.
...1127, 1131 (9th Cir.2011), the “legal premises underlying a preliminary injunction” are reviewed de novo. A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2002). In granting or denying a preliminary injunction, the district court must consider four factors: a plaintiff's l......
-
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster
...Ninth Circuit affirmed this action as a "proper exercise of the district court's supervisory authority." A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2002). Importantly, Napster was never enjoined from distributing its software to the public. The injunction was solely......
-
Selecting Your Expert
...and theory disclosed by the testimony and to think through the critical technical problems. CASE In A&M Records Inc. v. Napster , 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), the defendant challenged the trial court’s use of a technical advisor but did not contest the appointment of the advisor, instead ......
-
Selecting Your Expert
...and theory disclosed by the testimony and to think through the critical technical problems. Case In A&M Records Inc. v. Napster , 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), the defendant challenged the trial court’s use of a technical advisor but did not contest the appointment of the advisor, instead ......
-
Selecting Your Expert
...and theory disclosed by the testimony and to think through the critical technical problems. CASE In A&M Records Inc. v. Napster , 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), the defendant challenged the trial court’s use of a technical advisor but did not contest the appointment of the advisor, instead ......
-
Table of Cases
...Able of C Ases -A- A&M Records Inc. v. Napster , 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), §180.1 ABB Air Preheater v. Regenerative Envtl. Equip. Co. , 167 F.R.D. 668 (D.N.J. 1996), §203 Abbot v. American Cyanamid Co., 844 F. 2d 1108, 1115 (4th Cir. 1988), §424.3 Abbott v. Taz Express , 67 Cal. App. 4......