White House lawyers on Friday filed for the United States what
is known as a “friend of the court” brief. Under US federal law, an
individual or an organisation that is not a party to a particular
lawsuit can file such a brief to advise the court regarding a point
of law or fact directly concerning the lawsuit.
Napster had argued in its case that computers should be
considered home recording devices under the 1992 Audio Home
Recording Act. The United States argued that computers were
deliberately left out of the 1992 law, which was a compromise
between the music industry, the consumer electronics industry and
the people who use such devices.
The brief states:
"Permitting Napster to shelter itself behind
[the 1992 Act] would defeat this basic statutory quid pro quo:
Napster's users would be permitted to engage in digital copying and
public distribution of copyrighted works on a scale beggaring
anything Congress could have imagined when it enacted the Act, yet
the music industry would receive nothing in return because the
products used by Napster and its users (computers and hard drives)
are unquestionably not subject to the Act's royalty and serial
copying provisions."
Other groups have filed another friend of the court brief in the
case, including the Motion Pictures Association of America and the
Software and Information Industry Association. Napster has until
tomorrow to file defences to these arguments.
MP3.com, which last week was ordered to pay between $118 and
$250 million to Universal Music, has said that it will soon
re-launch its MyMP3.com service which was the cause of the original
action against the company. It has reached settlements with four
major record companies and is now licensed to provide their
music.
