Editing Streaming media (section)

==== The fight for intellectual property rights: ''A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.'' ====
The lawsuit ''[[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.]]'' fundamentally changed the way consumers interact with music streaming. It was argued on 2 October 2000, and was decided on 12 February 2001. The [[Court of Appeals]] for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a P2P file-sharing service could be held liable for contributory and vicarious infringement of copyright, serving as a landmark decision for Intellectual property law.<ref name="wustl1">{{cite web|url=https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/case-study-am-records-inc-v-napster-inc/|title=Case Study: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. – Blog {{!}} @WashULaw|date=1 August 2013|website=onlinelaw.wustl.edu|access-date=11 March 2019|archive-date=31 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200531145508/https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/case-study-am-records-inc-v-napster-inc/|url-status=live}}</ref>

The first issue that the Court addressed was [[fair use]], which says that otherwise infringing activities are permissible so long as they are for purposes "such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching [...] scholarship, or research."<ref name="cornell2001">{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm|title=A&M RECORDS, INC. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)|website=law.cornell.edu|access-date=11 March 2019|archive-date=12 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412213747/https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Judge Beezer, the judge for this case, noted that Napster claimed that its services fit "three specific alleged fair uses: [[sampling (music)|sampling]], where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing; space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists."<ref name="cornell2001"/> Judge Beezer found that Napster did not fit these criteria, instead enabling their users to repeatedly copy music, which would affect the market value of the copyrighted good.

The second claim by the plaintiffs was that Napster was actively contributing to [[copyright infringement]] since it had knowledge of widespread file sharing on its platform. Since Napster took no action to reduce infringement and financially benefited from repeated use, the court ruled against the P2P site. The court found that "as much as eighty-seven percent of the files available on Napster may be copyrighted and more than seventy percent may be owned or administered by plaintiffs."<ref name="cornell2001"/>

The [[injunction]] ordered against Napster ended the brief period in which music streaming was a public good – non-rival and non-excludable in nature. Other P2P networks had some success at sharing MP3s, though they all met a similar fate in court. The ruling set the precedent that copyrighted digital content cannot be freely replicated and shared unless given consent by the owner, thereby strengthening the property rights of artists and record labels alike.<ref name="wustl1"/>