In the summer of 1999, a website, anapest. Com by Shawn Fanning, then an 18-year- old freshman computer science student at Northeastern university. , was launched In the US, changing the global music industry forever. Anapest was a system which enabled persons to locate music available In the MPH, and WHAM music formats. The website made It possible for Its users to freely share their music files through the Internet with other users around the world. Forever, Anapest maintained a database of music files held on the computer hard-drives of other registered Anapest users. His allowed a user, looking for a particular song to send a request to Anapest, which the software then checked the availability of that song with this database, and if available, sent it to the user who requested it. The service became tremendously popular within a short span of time. The website involved 1. 6 million simultaneous users during the height of its popularity in February 2000.
Anapest’s offering of this ‘peer-to-peer’ technology was however robustly condemned by the Recording Industry Association of America (ARIA), a trade group with record labels including, universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, MME Group and Bertelsmann GAG. ARIA alleged that Anapest was engaging In or assisting others In copying copyrighted music without payment or the express permission of the owners. ARIA also claimed that Anapest would significantly damage the sales of the recording industry.
Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!
In December 1999, the body sued Anapest in the Federal District Court for copyright infringements and petitioned the court to shut down the website. A;M Records, Inc. V. Anapest, Inc. , 239 F. Id 1004 (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 (PEP) file-sharing service Anapest, 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. On July 26, 2000, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary Injunction. The Injunction was slightly modified by written pollen on August 10, 2000. The district court preliminarily enjoined Anapest “from engaging In, or facilitating others in copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing plaintiffs’ copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings, protected by either federal or state law, without express permission of the rights owner. ” old. T 927. In 1987, the Moving Picture Experts Group set a standard file format for the storage of audio recordings in a digital format called MPEG-3, abbreviated as “MPH. ” Digital MPH files recreated through a process colloquially called “ripping. ” Ripping footwear allows a computer owner to copy an audio compact disk (“audio CD”) directly onto a computer’s hard drive by compressing the audio information on the CD into the MPH format. The Amp’s compressed format allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.
The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine Issue of material fact. The burden then shifts to the moving party to “go beyond the pleadings, and by [its] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. ‘” Calotte Corp.. V. Caterer, 477 U. S. 17, 324 (1986)…. The court does not make credibility determinations in considering a motion for summary Judgment.
Rather, it views the inferences drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion In July 2001, Anapest shut down its entire network in order to comply with the injunction. On September 24, 2001, the case was partially settled. Anapest agreed to pay music creators and copyright owners a $26 million settlement for past, unauthorized uses of music, as well as an advance against future licensing royalties of $10 million. In order to pay those fees, Anapest attempted to convert their free revive to a subscription system. Thus traffic to Anapest was reduced.