User talk:Bcca15: Difference between revisions
→Online mentor: new section |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
On April 13, 2000 [[Metallica]] filed a lawsuit against the file sharing company [[Napster]]. The attorney representing Metallica was Howard King and the judge ruling over the case was Federal Judge [[Marilyn Hall Patel]]. On July 11, 2000 Lars Ulrich, who acted as the lead spokesperson for the case, provided a statement to the senate Judiciary Committee regarding the copyright infringement.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20071129061341/http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=195&wit_id=252</ref> The suit consisted of three violations, Napster was accused of copyright infringement, unlawful use of digital audio interface , and violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. Metallica argued that Napster was enabling users to exchange copyrighted MP3 files. By allowing their music to be shared, users were not paying sufficient homage to their grueling artistry.<ref>Marshall L. (2002, April 5) Metallica and Morality: The Rhetorical Battleground of the Napster Wars. Pg. 8</ref> Metallica sought at least $10 million dollars in damages, which is based upon $100,000 per song illegally downloaded.<ref>http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239263.html</ref> Metallica also demanded that all of their songs not be available for sharing and the users responsible for sharing their music be banned from the service. This lead to over 300,000 users being banned from the service, 30,000 of which claimed they never shared any Metallica songs.<ref>http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/47976/napster_timeline/</ref> This suit also named several universities to be held accountable for allowing students to illegally download music on their networks. These universities included University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University.<ref>http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239263.html</ref> The court ruled in favor of Metallica and Napster was forced to block several songs from being downloaded and users banned. This court ruling led to Dr. Dre joining the suit and several other lawsuits by music artists, record companies, and the [[Recording Industry Association of America|RIAA]]. |
On April 13, 2000 [[Metallica]] filed a lawsuit against the file sharing company [[Napster]]. The attorney representing Metallica was Howard King and the judge ruling over the case was Federal Judge [[Marilyn Hall Patel]]. On July 11, 2000 Lars Ulrich, who acted as the lead spokesperson for the case, provided a statement to the senate Judiciary Committee regarding the copyright infringement.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20071129061341/http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=195&wit_id=252</ref> The suit consisted of three violations, Napster was accused of copyright infringement, unlawful use of digital audio interface , and violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. Metallica argued that Napster was enabling users to exchange copyrighted MP3 files. By allowing their music to be shared, users were not paying sufficient homage to their grueling artistry.<ref>Marshall L. (2002, April 5) Metallica and Morality: The Rhetorical Battleground of the Napster Wars. Pg. 8</ref> Metallica sought at least $10 million dollars in damages, which is based upon $100,000 per song illegally downloaded.<ref>http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239263.html</ref> Metallica also demanded that all of their songs not be available for sharing and the users responsible for sharing their music be banned from the service. This lead to over 300,000 users being banned from the service, 30,000 of which claimed they never shared any Metallica songs.<ref>http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/47976/napster_timeline/</ref> This suit also named several universities to be held accountable for allowing students to illegally download music on their networks. These universities included University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University.<ref>http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239263.html</ref> The court ruled in favor of Metallica and Napster was forced to block several songs from being downloaded and users banned. This court ruling led to Dr. Dre joining the suit and several other lawsuits by music artists, record companies, and the [[Recording Industry Association of America|RIAA]]. |
||
== Online mentor == |
|||
Hi there. I have signed up to be "online mentor", to you and to {{user|Silversj4467}}. |
|||
I did so at the request of [[User talk:Sross (Public Policy)|Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation]] . |
|||
So...I'd like to know if I can help you, in any way. |
|||
Please leave me a note on [[User talk:Chzz|my talk page]]. |
|||
I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 09:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:14, 27 March 2011
hi brad
|
Metallica v. Napster, Inc.
The Members include James Silvers and Brad Abel.
On April 13, 2000 Metallica filed a lawsuit against the file sharing company Napster. The attorney representing Metallica was Howard King and the judge ruling over the case was Federal Judge Marilyn Hall Patel. On July 11, 2000 Lars Ulrich, who acted as the lead spokesperson for the case, provided a statement to the senate Judiciary Committee regarding the copyright infringement.[1] The suit consisted of three violations, Napster was accused of copyright infringement, unlawful use of digital audio interface , and violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. Metallica argued that Napster was enabling users to exchange copyrighted MP3 files. By allowing their music to be shared, users were not paying sufficient homage to their grueling artistry.[2] Metallica sought at least $10 million dollars in damages, which is based upon $100,000 per song illegally downloaded.[3] Metallica also demanded that all of their songs not be available for sharing and the users responsible for sharing their music be banned from the service. This lead to over 300,000 users being banned from the service, 30,000 of which claimed they never shared any Metallica songs.[4] This suit also named several universities to be held accountable for allowing students to illegally download music on their networks. These universities included University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University.[5] The court ruled in favor of Metallica and Napster was forced to block several songs from being downloaded and users banned. This court ruling led to Dr. Dre joining the suit and several other lawsuits by music artists, record companies, and the RIAA.
Online mentor
Hi there. I have signed up to be "online mentor", to you and to Silversj4467 (talk · contribs).
I did so at the request of Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation .
So...I'd like to know if I can help you, in any way.
Please leave me a note on my talk page.
I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers, Chzz ► 09:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20071129061341/http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=195&wit_id=252
- ^ Marshall L. (2002, April 5) Metallica and Morality: The Rhetorical Battleground of the Napster Wars. Pg. 8
- ^ http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239263.html
- ^ http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/47976/napster_timeline/
- ^ http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239263.html