A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works,” even without direct economic benefit, is sufficient for a court to find commercial use
• holding that turning a blind eye to detectable acts of infringement for the sake of making a profit can give rise to liability for contributory copyright infringement
• holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions
• holding that “Napster materially contribute^] to the infringing activity” because, “Without the support services defendant provides, Napster users could not find and download the music they want with the ease of which defendant boasts” (internal quotation marks removed
• concluding that “Napster may be vicariously liable when it fails to affirmatively use its ability to patrol its system and preclude access to potentially infringing files listed in its search index” (emphasis added)
• finding that defendant materially contributed to its users’ infringement by providing the “site and facilities” to commit direct infringement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).