03/07/2002 -Napster judge to labels: Prove it
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge gave the record labels suing Napster until Thursday to produce documents proving they own the copyrights to 213 songs that once traded for free over the song-swap service.
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered the labels to provide certificates of copyright registration, or applications for such proof, for top-selling artists such as the Beatles and Elvis Presley.
A special master, Neil Boorstyn, was appointed by Patel to examine the labels' documents. He will file a report to the court detailing whether the labels have sufficiently established copyright ownership rights.
Patel's latest order stems from her previous ruling, which was made public Feb. 22. At that time, she gave notice to the major labels that they would need to turn over documents proving they own the rights to the songs.
In that earlier ruling, Patel also opened the door to legal discovery on Napster's claims that the labels misused their copyrights to dominate the growing online music distribution industry.
The deadline for the record labels to turn the documents over to Boorstyn was made public Wednesday, though the labels have known since the February ruling that they would expected to produce them.
It's a last grasp by Napster to limit monetary damages in a case that has slowly gone against the Redwood City-based company since its service went offline in July. Napster is poised to return as a subscription music download service, but an official launch date has not been announced. It is in a limited beta testing mode.
The company remains convinced they've made a dent in the armor of the recording industry by convincing a judge to force the labels to turn over copyright ownership documents.
"It's rarely happened that the labels have been put through their paces in this way," said Jonathan Schwartz, Napster's general counsel.
Cary Sherman, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, has said the labels stand ready to refute Napster's claims that they've worked in collusion to dominate the digital distribution market.
The case is A&M Records v. Napster, No. C99-5183
AI
