MusicShare software and then clicking a “Find It” button. The Napster servers would perform a
text search of the file names in the index and respond by sending the requesting user a list of files
that included the same term(s) the requesting user entered on the search form. Alternatively,
users could access MP3 files via a “hotlist” function. This function enabled a Napster user to
archive other user names and learn whether account holders who accessed the network under
those names were online. A requesting user could access or browse all files listed in the user
libraries of hotlisted users.^1619
In either case, once a requesting user located and selected a desired file from a list of
search results or a list of files made available by a hotlisted user, the Napster server software
would then engage in a dialog with the MusicShare software of the requesting user and that of
the “host user” (i.e., the user who made the desired MP3 file available for downloading). The
Napster server would obtain the necessary Internet Protocol (IP) address information from the
host user, communicate the host user’s address or routing information to the requesting user, and
the requesting user’s computer would then employ this information to establish a “peer-to-peer”
connection directly with the host user’s MusicShare software and download the MP3 file from
the host user’s library. The content of the actual MP3 file would be transferred over the Internet
between the users, not through the Napster servers. No MP3 music files were stored on the
Napster servers themselves.^1620
The plaintiffs, owners of the copyrights in many of the sound recordings being
downloaded by users through the Napster system, brought claims for contributory and vicarious
copyright infringement and sought a preliminary injunction against Napster. A second, very
similar case, was filed against Napster in federal district court in the Northern District of
California on Jan. 7, 2000.^1621 That case was a class action filed by named plaintiffs Jerry
Leiber, Mike Stoller, and Frank Music Corp. on behalf of themselves and “those music
publisher-principals of The Harry Fox Agency, Inc.”^1622 The complaint alleged that Napster’s
Web site constituted inducement and contributory infringement of the copyrights in various
musical compositions held by the members of the class.^1623 The complaint further alleged that
Napster was contributing to the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of “phonorecords”
embodying the copyrighted musical compositions of members of the class without obtaining the
necessary authority from The Harry Fox Agency.^1624 Those two cases were consolidated before
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.
Several other copyright holders, including the artists Metallica and Dr. Dre and several
independent recording artists and labels, as well as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences (AMPAS), ultimately also filed lawsuits against Napster for copyright infringement, all
(^1619) Id. at 906.
(^1620) Id. at 907.
(^1621) Leiber et al. v. Napster Inc., No. C 00 0074 ENE (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2000).
(^1622) Id. ¶ 10.
(^1623) Id. ¶¶ 1, 29.
(^1624) Id. ¶ 30.