Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation–752

191 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (2002)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation–752

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

191 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (2002)

Facts

Napster, Incorporated (Napster) (defendant) developed a peer-to-peer file sharing website that allowed users to exchange music files with one another. Several major music labels, including EMI, BMG, Warner, Sony, and Universal (the plaintiffs), sued Napster for copyright infringement. Napster asserted that the plaintiffs’ copyright-infringement claims could not be enforced by the courts, because the plaintiffs’ licensing practices were anticompetitive and against public policy, and therefore subject to the misuse doctrine. Specifically, Napster alleged that all five plaintiffs refused to individually license their music portfolios to Napster. Subsequently, EMI, BMG, and Warner developed a joint-venture music platform named MusicNet. Sony and Universal developed a joint-venture platform called pressplay and were also in discussions to license their music portfolios to MusicNet. MusicNet negotiated a license agreement to Napster that prohibited Napster from entering any individual license agreements for a period of time and then allowed MusicNet to terminate the license if Napster entered into individual license agreements at a later point. Napster presented expert evidence suggesting that the plaintiffs’ conduct was anticompetitive, because it involved refusals to deal, exclusive dealing, and likely price-coordination. Napster’s misuse-doctrine argument was rejected at the preliminary-injunction stage. However, Napster reasserted the doctrine as a defense when the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Patel, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 516,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership