Concept
507 Notorious
Property: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 / 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or
"507 After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster, was sued by copyright holders for facilitation of copyright infringement, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D.Cal.2000), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 239 F.3d 1004 (C.A.9 2001), StreamCast gave away a software program of a kind known as OpenNap, designed as compatible with the Napster program and open to Napster users for downloading files from other Napster and OpenNap users’ computers. Evidence indicates that “[i]t was always [StreamCast’s] intent to use [its OpenNap network] to be able to capture email addresses of [its] initial target market so that [it] could promote [its] StreamCast Morpheus interface to them,” App. 861; indeed, the OpenNap program was engineered “‘to leverage Napster’s 50 million user base.’” StreamCast monitored both the number of users down- loading its OpenNap program and the number of music files they downloaded. It also used the resulting OpenNap network to distribute copies of the Morpheus software and to encourage users to adopt it. Internal company documents indicate that StreamCast hoped to attract large numbers of former Napster users if that company was shut down by court order or otherwise, and that StreamCast planned to be the next Napster. A kit developed by StreamCast to be delivered to advertisers, for example, contained press articles about StreamCast’s potential to capture former Napster users, and it introduced itself to some potential advertisers as a company “which is similar to what Napster was.” It broadcast banner advertisements to users of other Napster-compatible software, urging them to adopt its OpenNap. An internal e-mail from a company executive stated: “‘We have put this network in place so that when Napster pulls the plug on their free service … or if the Court orders them shut down prior to that … we will be positioned to capture the flood of their 32 million users that will be actively looking for an alternative.’”"
Related Ideas
- 516 UnderstandingProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or
- 515 LiabilityProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or
- 517 CopyrightedProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or
- 509 UsersProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or
- 519 PurposeProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or
- 514 ClassicProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or
- 518 ViewedProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or
- 513 SpecificProperty: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 · 13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or