 |
 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Napster filter welcomed by music industry
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- The president of the Recording Industry Association of America said she believed that there had been progress in Friday's hearing on the federal injunction that could cripple the Napster song-swapping service. Attorneys for the recording industry and Napster were back in federal court Friday, where U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel was expected to modify an injunction to essentially shut down the music file-sharing service.
Napster attorney David Boies announced in the hearing that Napster would start implementing a system over the weekend that will block users from downloading restricted artists albums and songs. "It's important for me to give some credit to Napster today," said Hillary Rosen of the RIAA. "I think they came into court trying to be productive, I still think that they've got a way to go. "There are things and affirmative steps they should be taking which they have resisted in court today, but they did say they wanted to work with something effective and we'll take them at that word," Rosen added. A federal appeals court ordered the hearing last week. The three-judge panel upheld most of Patel's original injunction from last July, but ordered the judge to redraft it. The appellate ruling was a victory for the recording industry, which claims the service violates copyright laws. The court said Patel must modify her injunction to require record labels to identify which copyrights are being violated. Patel did not issue a new injunction Friday, but it could come at any time. Napster attorney defends serviceRosen said that Napster's admission that it could filter songs was a dramatic change in position.
"What Napster said today, which they have essentially have been denying for the last year, was that they could filter out unauthorized songs," Rosen said. "You'll remember they argued before this court last year, they argued last September at the 9th Circuit [Court of Appeals] that they couldn't. Today they have finally said what we've all known for over a year, that they absolutely can filter out unauthorized works." Boies said Napster was adapting its system to conform with the appeals court ruling, but he believed that a jury would find that the service was not illegal. He said Napster can block individual file names, but cannot go into the files to see if there has been a copyright violation. Boies said the appeals court put the burden of proving copyright infringement on the recording industry. "They placed on the plaintiffs the burden of first coming forward and identifying a work that they had a copyright in, and second demonstrating that it was listed on the Napster index that is available through Napster," Boies said. "Because the court of appeals -- we think -- properly put that burden on the plaintiffs, we have begun by dealing with those files where the plaintiffs have met that burden." Boies said Napster has already blocked more than 1 million song files. Record companies want Napster to block out all files of a song or album. It has submitted a list of more than 6,500 songs it wants blocked. Fee-based system scheduled for summerWhen asked about Napster's plan to settle the lawsuit for $1 billion dollars over five years, Rosen said the courts were the wrong place to settle the disputed licensing. "The money that Napster offered they should be offering in individual discussions with individual companies," Rosen said. "There isn't an industry license that can be granted and there won't be an industry response to a billion dollar offer." Under the proposal, Napster would have provided guaranteed revenue of $1 billion to the major labels, songwriters and independent labels and artists over the next five years. Major labels would have received $150 million per year for a non-exclusive license, divided according to files transferred. Another $50 million per year would have been set aside for independent labels and artists to be paid out based on the volume of files transferred. The model includes a basic membership plan for users that would cost as much as $5 per month with a limit on file transfers. A premium monthly membership would cost as much as $10 and would offer unlimited file transfers. The Internet service is going forward with the proposed fee-based system, which it says will be in place by summer. Napster is one of the most widely used Web sites, with 57 million registered users. The new proposed Napster, scheduled for launch this summer, also would have limitations of 128 kilobytes per second and lower for sharing files, which would hamper both the speed and quality of music being swapped. Users also would have to pay an additional fee to burn CDs and to transfer their music to portable devices. CNN Correspondent James Hattori contributed to this report. RELATED STORIES: Free music fight: Napster battles to keep sharing music files RELATED SITES:
Wired News |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back to the top | |
© 2003 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. |
