A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster,
Inc.案
楊智傑
第一個代表案例
• A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d
1004 (2001) was a landmark（指標）
intellectual property（智慧財產權） case in
which the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit（第九巡迴上訴法院） affirmed the
ruling of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California（加州南區地區法
院）, holding that defendant, peer-to-peer (P2P)
file-sharing service Napster, could be held liable
for contributory infringement（輔助侵權） and
vicarious infringement（代位侵權） of the
plaintiffs' copyrights.
被告Napster
• Napster provided a platform for users to access
and download compressed(壓縮) digital music
files, specifically MP3s, from other
users‘ machines. Unlike many peer-to-peer
services, however, Napster included a central
server（中央伺服器） that indexed connected
users and files available on their machines,
creating a searchable list of music available
across Napster's network.
原告
• The full list of plaintiffs included a number
of record companies, all members of the
Recording Industry Association of America
(RIAA).
• Universal Music Group, Sony Music
Entertainment, EMI, and Warner Music
Group are known as the "big four" in the
music industry.
程序背景一
• Plaintiffs alleged both contributory（輔助
的） and vicarious（代位的） copyright
（著作權） infringement（侵權） by
Napster, and soon filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction（初步禁制令） in
order to stop the exchange of plaintiffs'
songs on the service immediately.
程序背景二
• Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United
States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the
preliminary injunction（初步禁制令）, on
the grounds that the plaintiffs
demonstrated（論證了） a reasonable
likelihood of success（勝訴之可能性）.
• Napster appealed to United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
直接侵權
• The Circuit Court agreed with the district
court‘s threshold determination that
Napster users were probably engaging in
direct infringement（直接侵權） of
plaintiffs' copyrights.
合理使用判斷一：使用之目的及性
質
• downloading an MP3 is not transformative
（轉化性） under the purpose and
character of use factor, and that even
though Napster didn‘t directly benefit
financially from users’ downloads (i.e.,
charge for the service), “repeated and
exploitative（利用的） copying of
copyrighted works, even if the copies are
not offered for sale” could be considered a
commercial use（商業性使用）.
合理使用判斷二：被利用著作之性
質
• creative works（創造性作品）, such as
the songs in question, are “closer to the
core” of intended copyright protection than
non-creative works, thus favoring（有利於）
the plaintiffs on the second factor（第二項
因素）.
合理使用判斷三：使用之質量及所
佔之比例
• 3.They considered the potential that in
some cases, wholesale（整批、全部）
copying of a work may be protected,
noting time-shifting（時間轉移） as an
example.
合理使用判斷四：對著作價值現在
及潛在銷售市場之影響
• 4.widespread wholesale transfer of
plaintiff‘s music negatively affected the
market for CD sales and that it also
jeopardizes（危及） the record industry’s
future in digital markets.
試聽（sampling）非合理使用
• 1.sampling, where users make temporary（暫時
性） copies of a work to sample it before
purchase, which the District Court found to be a
commercial use even if a user purchases the
work at a later time.
• Sampling was deemed to not be a fair use,
because the “samples” were in fact permanent
（永恆的） and complete（完全） copies（重製
品） of the desired media.
空間轉移（space-shifting）
• space-shifting（空間轉移） of musical
compositions and sound recordings is a
fair use. See Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am.
v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d
1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)
時間移轉（time-shifting）
• Sony, 464 U.S. at 423 (holding that “timeshifting,”（時間轉移） where a video tape
recorder owner records a television show
for later viewing, is a fair use).
• Both Diamond and Sony are inapposite
because the methods of shifting in these
cases did not also simultaneously involve
distribution(散布) of the copyrighted
material to the general public.
輔助侵權（ contributory
infringement ）
• In order to prove contributory infringement,
a plaintiff must show that a defendant had
knowledge（知情） of infringement (here,
that Napster knew that its users were
distributing copyrighted content without
permission across its network) and that
defendant supplied material support（提供
實質幫助） to that infringement.
知情（ Knowledge）
• The District Court ruled that the “law does not
require knowledge of ‘specific acts of
infringement‘ ” and rejected Napster’s assertion
that, because they could not distinguish between
infringing（侵權） and non-infringing（非侵權）
files, they did not have knowledge of copyright
infringement.
• The Ninth Circuit upheld this analysis, accepting
that Napster had “knowledge, both actual（實際
知情） and constructive（推定知情）, of direct
infringement."
實質非侵權用途
• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios,
Inc., "the Betamax case“
• if a defendant “made and sold equipment
capable of both infringing and substantial
noninfringing uses（實質非侵權用途）," that fact
alone—i.e., "evidence that such machines could
be and were used to infringe plaintiffs'
copyrighted television shows" – would not be
sufficient grounds to impute constructive
knowledge to defendants.
知道有侵權素材卻不處理
• if a computer system operator learns of specific
infringing material available on his system and
fails to purge（淨化） such material from the
system, the operator knows of and contributes to
direct infringement. ... Conversely, absent any
specific information which identifies infringing
activity, a computer system operator cannot be
liable for contributory infringement merely
because the structure of the system allows for
the exchange of copyrighted material.
實質貢獻（ Material contribution ）
• The Ninth Circuit briefly approved the
district court's analysis of this element.
代位侵權
• Addressing the vicarious infringement
claim, the court then considered the
necessary factors:
– whether Napster benefited financially（財政上
得利） from the infringement and
– whether they were capable of（有能力）
supervising（監督） and controlling（控制）
infringing conduct.
是否營利
• The Ninth Circuit sided with the District
Court, who held that the infringing activity
was a draw to potential users and that,
since and Napster‘s future business model
was predicated（取決於、基於） on
expanding the number of users, Napster
stood to benefit financially from the
infringing activity.
有能力監督
• Napster had “the right and ability to supervise
its users‘ conduct.“
• Napster’s ability to patrol（巡邏、偵查） and
enforce infringing use was limited by the design
of the system itself. The system was not
designed to read the contents of MP3s or check
for copyright ownership or permissions, only to
index by name and ensure they are valid MP3
files.
• these indices and infringing files were just as
searchable by Napster as they were by the
plaintiffs in locating infringing files for evidence
in the case.