A&M RECORDS, INC., petitioner vs NAPSTER INC.

,respondent
G.R. NO. 80155, October 17, 1989

FACTS:
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. was a landmark legal case that took place in the early 2000s.
It was a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by A&M Records, Inc. against Napster, Inc. - a
company that developed and maintained a peer-to-peer file-sharing service. The case is
significant because it was one of the first major legal battles over digital copyright infringement,
and it set a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. Napster was founded in 1999 by
Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker. The company developed a peer-to-peer file-sharing service
that allowed users to share digital music files over the internet. Napster quickly gained
popularity, with millions of users sharing music files through the service. However, many of
these files were copyrighted and therefore illegal to share without permission from the copyright
owners. In 2000, A&M Records, Inc. and several other major record labels filed a lawsuit against
Napster, alleging that the company was facilitating copyright infringement by allowing users to
share copyrighted music without permission.
The record labels argued that Napster should be held liable for this infringement because the
company was providing the platform and technology that enabled it. The case went to trial in
2001. The record labels presented evidence showing that Napster's service was being used to
share copyrighted music files on a massive scale. Napster argued that it was not responsible for
the actions of its users and that it was simply providing a platform for them to share files. In July
2001, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction
against Napster, ordering the company to cease all infringing activities on its platform.
The court found that Napster was likely to be held liable for contributory copyright infringement,
which occurs when a party knowingly facilitates copyright infringement by others. The court's
decision was based on the fact that Napster had the ability to control access to its platform and
could have implemented measures to prevent copyright infringement. However, the company
had failed to do so, and therefore it was held responsible for the infringing activities of its users.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is liable for reproduction and distributing the sound recording.

RULING:
Yes. Napster was forced to shut down its service and file for bankruptcy. However, the case had
far-reaching implications beyond Napster's demise. It set a precedent for future cases involving
digital copyright infringement and established the principle that companies providing platforms
for user-generated content could be held liable for the copyright infringement of their users. The
case also spurred the development of new digital music distribution models, such as Apple's
iTunes, which allowed users to legally purchase and download music online. These new models
offered a viable alternative to file-sharing services like Napster, and helped to reduce the
prevalence of illegal downloading.