Editing Napster (section)

===Legal challenges===
A demo of the heavy metal band [[Metallica]]'s song "[[I Disappear]]" had been circulating across the network before the song's official release. This led to it being played on several radio stations across the United States, which alerted Metallica to the presence of the leaked song, along with the fact that their entire back catalogue of studio material was also available on Napster. On April 13, 2000, they filed a [[Metallica v. Napster, Inc.|lawsuit against Napster]]. A month later, rapper and producer [[Dr. Dre]], who shared a litigator and legal firm with Metallica, filed a similar lawsuit after Napster refused his written request to remove his works from its service. Separately, Metallica and Dr. Dre later delivered to Napster thousands of usernames of people who they believed were pirating their songs. In March 2001, Napster settled both suits, after being shut down by the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] in a separate lawsuit from several major record labels (see below).<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1086/522098 |title=Conflict and Compromise: Drama in Marketplace Evolution |year=2008 |last1=Giesler |first1=Markus |journal=Journal of Consumer Research |volume=34 |issue=6 |pages=739–753 |url=http://visionarymarketing.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/giesler2007jcr.pdf |citeseerx=10.1.1.564.7146 |s2cid=145796529 |access-date=2017-10-25 |archive-date=2008-07-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080724001917/http://visionarymarketing.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/giesler2007jcr.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> In 2000, [[Madonna]]'s [[Single (music)|single]] "[[Music (Madonna song)|Music]]" was leaked out onto the web and Napster prior to its commercial release, causing widespread media coverage.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://news.com/2100-1023-241341.html?legacy=cnet | title=Unreleased Madonna Single Slips On To Net | publisher=CNET News.com | date=June 1, 2000 | last=Borland | first=John | archive-url=https://archive.today/20120628232111/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-241341.html | archive-date=June 28, 2012 | url-status=dead | df=mdy-all }}</ref> Verified Napster use peaked with 26.4 million users worldwide in February 2001.<ref>{{cite press release | url=http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?id=249 | title=Global Napster Usage Plummets, But new File-Sharing Alternatives Gaining Ground, Reports Jupiter Media Metrix | publisher=comScore | date=2001-07-20 | access-date=April 26, 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080413104420/http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?id=249 | archive-date=2008-04-13}}</ref> In that same month, with a court-ordered interim shut-down imminent, Napster went public with a settlement proposal which would have paid the record labels $1 billion over the next five years, with the money coming through a subscription service.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jamshowbiz.com/JamNapster/feb21_napster-can.html#coverage|title=Napster to charge up to $10 a month|date=February 21, 2001|website=jamshowbiz.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010320011102/http://www.jamshowbiz.com/JamNapster/feb21_napster-can.html#coverage |archive-date=20 March 2001 }}</ref>

In 2000, the American musical recording company [[A&M Records]] along with several other recording companies, through the [[Recording Industry Association of America]] (RIAA), sued Napster (''[[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.]]'') on grounds of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement under the US [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] (DMCA).<ref>17 U.S.C. A&M Records. Inc. v. Napster. Inc. 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N. D. Cal. 2000).</ref> Napster was faced with the following allegations from the music industry:

# That its users were directly violating the plaintiffs' copyrights.
# That Napster was responsible for contributory infringement of the plaintiff's copyrights.
# That Napster was responsible for the vicarious infringement of the plaintiff's copyrights.

Napster lost the case in the District Court but then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although it was clear that Napster could have commercially significant non-infringing uses, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision. Immediately after, the District Court commanded Napster to keep track of the activities of its network and to restrict access to infringing material when informed of that material's location. Napster wasn't able to comply and thus had to close down its service in July 2001. In 2002, Napster announced that it had filed for bankruptcy and sold its assets to a third party.<ref>.A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). For a summary and analysis, see Guy Douglas, [http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n1/douglas111.html Copyright and Peer-To-Peer Music File Sharing: The Napster Case and the Argument Against Legislative Reform] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100709232632/http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n1/douglas111.html |date=2010-07-09 }}</ref> In a 2018 ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' article, Kirk Hammett of Metallica upheld the band's opinion that suing Napster was the "right" thing to do.<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Metallica's Kirk Hammett: 'We're Still Right' About Suing Napster |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/metallicas-kirk-hammett-were-still-right-about-suing-napster-630185/ |magazine=Rolling Stone |access-date=16 October 2019 |date=2018-05-14 |archive-date=2019-10-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191016190119/https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/metallicas-kirk-hammett-were-still-right-about-suing-napster-630185/ |url-status=live }}</ref>