4 .
In December of 1999 the RIAA filed a lawsuit against Napster. Eventually by July 2000, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel issued an injunction against Napster, ordering the company to prohibit copyrighted songs from appearing on its online file-sharing service, a move that would essentially shut the service down.5 .
Napster's main arguments related to the "Doctrine of Fair Use", which came into being in the 19th century. The doctrine basically states that people have the right to use copyrighted material under certain circumstances. For instance, students will not likely be punished for making copies of a few pages from a textbook for personal use, because that constitutes "fair use" of the material. However if a student made copies of an entire textbook, then preceded in selling them on the street corner, would constitute copyright infringement. Because the original work was duplicated without permission and used for profit, without the copyright owner getting any cut of the profits.
Napster tried to capitalize on the 1984 decision by the Supreme Court in the Sony v. Universal City Studios, which rejected the claim that videocassette recorders were tools for contributory copyright infringement, holding that users were simply "time shifting" their television viewing, (recording a TV program to view at a later time). The problem with Napster bringing up the Sony case is that Napster does far more than a VCR. It does not merely move content to a more convenient time, or viewing atmosphere, its also makes and holds copies of mp3s so they can be shared with others. Another problem with the Sony decision is that VCRs are used in a private, home environment, whereas Napster is communal and universal.
Secondly Napster also tried to claim that its service's were merely for users to sample, or browse sound recordings. This defense was shot down because browsing requires limited usage, not full scale downloading, which was the case with Napster.
