Talk:A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. |
Napster Ruling edit
Sorry if some people may consider "Chilling effect" as not NPOV, but I believe it is the correct word. However, the section does warrant citations supporting claims such as "frequently cited". I remember it was a popular issue for debate at the time (2001), and the problem of "illegal hyperlinks" continues to echo in circles of digital law (nearly all cases against BitTorrent trackers with .torrent hyperlinks to copyrighted data hinge on this precedent, rather than the newer argument of intent and inducement of MGM v. Grokster) through to today. User:71.246.25.54 / User:71.246.25.218 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that "chilling effect" is particularly NPOV. I think that "Criticism" or "Impact" is a more unbiased header, and I'm planning to fix up this section and include citations and links to the amicus briefs filed on behalf of both sides. Agreatnotion (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Vicarious Infringement edit
The article somewhat implies that Napster was held liable for contributory infringement only, but both district court and court of appeals decisions hold Napster, Inc. liable for vicarious infringement as well. From the court of appeals decision:
"Our review of the record requires us to accept the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the vicarious copyright infringement claim. Napster’s failure to police the system’s “premises,” combined with a showing that Napster financially benefits from the continuing availability of infringing files on its system, leads to the imposition of vicarious liability. " http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/0/c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument 201.37.185.130 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This link to the decision is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.248.157 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Class Assignment edit
I'm going to be working on this page for an IP Law class at UC Berkeley. I've already applied the COA infobox in place of the table that was there, and will be beefing the page up over the next two weeks. --Agreatnotion (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)