Talk:Metallica v. Napster, Inc.

Nominated for DYK
Nominated this article for DYK: Template_talk:Did_You_Know Jaobar (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fan Criticism
This court case caused an absolute fucking FIRESTORM of fan and public criticism of Metallica. Article doesn't mention any of this.

Citation?
What is the citation for the opinion in this case, as discussed in the "Outcome" section? Was the opinion published? [Stricken because there was no final opinion in the case and therefore it was not published.] It appears that, at least for one appeal, this suit was merged into A&M Records v. Napster, which listed Metallica as one of the many plaintiffs (see 284 F.3d 1091). My basic concern is that this article is literally about nothing, that it is about a case that was not resolved by a judicial opinion as the article supposes, and that the "Outcome" it refers to was actually the one in the A&M case, and that therefore this article should be merged into the A&M article and deleted. Robert K S (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also very suspicious of the "fact" that has led to this article being listed on DYK. The Metallica suit came years after Napster was established.  While I don't have any specific memory of media reports of other artists suing Napster (or another P2P service) before Metallica, I think it somewhat inconceivable that a lawsuit predating Metallica's and matching this criteria was not filed somewhere, and I don't think this claim can be made without a thorough investigation, one which would be quite difficult.  Is there any reference cited in the article which makes the same claim for the Metallica lawsuit? Robert K S (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The following passages from the Statement of Facts in Napster's brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal of the combined case are somewhat illuminating:

"In addition to the A&M Records and Leiber actions, the MDL proceeding includes lawsuits by recording artists Metallica (Metallica, et al. v. Napster, Inc.) and "Dr. Dre" (Andrew Young, p/k/a Dr. Dre, et al. v. Napster, Inc.) and an action (Casanova Records, et al. v. Napster, Inc.) in which three related Italian entities—Nicola Battista, Kutmusic, and Ecl3ctic—have claimed violation of sound recording and composition rights in their music. [Footnote: Plaintiff Casanova Records has dismissed its claim against Napster, but the parties still refer to the action by that name. On May 21, 2001, the district court denied the motion of the remaining Casanova Plaintiffs to certify a class of independent musicians. SER01022. On July 12, 2001, Metallica and Dr. Dre settled their lawsuits with Napster. SER01017.] Several other lawsuits are included in the MDL proceeding.

The Leiber action was heard and appealed jointly with the A&M Records case on the original preliminary injunction. After this Court decided that appeal and ordered a remand, the Metallica, Young, and Casanova Plaintiffs asked the district court to enter a preliminary injunction in their actions. The court in those cases entered preliminary injunctions substantially identical to the A&M and Leiber orders. [Footnote: Because the Leiber action involved plaintiff publishers asserting rights in "musical compositions" (as opposed to record companies or artists claiming rights in "sound recordings"), the terms of the modified injunction in Leiber were slightly different from the injunction in A&M. The Casanova, Metallica, and Dr. Dre Plaintiffs asserted rights to both "sound recordings" and "musical compositions." Accordingly, the injunctions in those cases included provisions found in both the Leiber and A&M injunctions. ER000671-674, ER000680-684, ER000685-689.] Because the preliminary injunctions are in relevant part substantially identical, we refer to them as "the preliminary injunction." The Plaintiffs in the Metallica, Young, and Casanova actions have not appealed the March 5 modified injunction. Napster has appealed the injunction orders in the three individual cases because they suffer the same defects as the A&M and Leiber orders."


 * Robert K S (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Metallica v. Napster, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=195&wit_id=252

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metallica v. Napster, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516221654/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670 to https://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)