The three judge panel asked the RIAA’s lawyers how Napster’s
service should or could be monitored to block the unauthorised
transfer of certain music files. One Judge asked an RIAA lawyer,
“How are they supposed to have knowledge of what comes off of some
kid’s computer in Hackensack, New Jersey, to a user in Guam?”
Lawyers for each side had only 20 minutes to state their case.
The judges adjourned without reaching a decision. The RIAA is
hoping they will re-instate an injunction initially imposed on
Napster by a district court judge in July. The RIAA argued that
Napster was specifically created to aid copyright infringement.
Hilary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA said after the day's oral
arguments:
“This case has never been about technology.
Rather, it is about Napster's abuse of peer-to-peer technology for
its own commercial benefit. It is our hope that the Court sends the
message that this activity will not be tolerated, so that
legitimate businesses who pay creators can enter the internet
market and compete fairly. Legitimate commerce must be able to
flourish without having to compete with free.”
Hank Barry, the CEO of Napster, said:
“I want to take a moment at this time to
note our surprise that we have been unable to resolve this case
outside of the judicial process... Over a period of many months,
Napster has made serious proposals to each of the major record
companies and their publishing affiliates that involve payments of
substantial percentages of expected company revenues to compensate
artists and rightsholders - proposals whose most conservative
estimates would result in payments of over $500 million to the
industry in just the first year alone. Every one of these proposals
has been rejected, and the record companies have made no
counterproposals.
"Just as we will continue to press our case
in court and on Capitol Hill, we will continue to seek an agreement
with the recording industry because we believe that our 32,000,000
users deserve nothing less."
