Matthew Katz, Pro per
29903 Harvester Road
Malibu, California. 90265
Tel: (310)457-4844
Fax: (310)457-1855
Attorney for: Plaintiff:
FILED
CLERK. US DISTRICT COURT

UNTITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE 00-0796 CAS

COMPLAINT FOR: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY AND VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF CCP 980(A)(2);TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; UNFAIR COMPETITION; AND INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS


JUL 24 2000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MATTHEWKATZ (dba SAN FRANCISCO
SOUND, AFTER YOU PUBLISHING CO.,
MALIBU RECORDS, MA TTHEW KA TZ
PRODUCTIONS)
Plaintiff,
NAPSTER, INC., JOHN W. FANNING,
SHA WN FANNING, SEAN PARKER, HANK
BARRY, HUMMER WINBLAD. BOB
BOZEMAN, YOSI AMRAM, JOE KRAUS,
FRED DURST (OF .'LIMP BIZKIT'). ROGER
MCGUINN (OF "THE BYRDS"),
JONATHAN H. GREENE and DOES 1 through
10 , inclusive,
v.
Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1
This is an action for copyright infringement arising under the copyright laws of the
,United States, Title 17 United States Code, 101 et seq.; for trademark infiingement arising under the
trademark laws of the United States, Title 15 United States Code, §§ 1501 et seq.; and for related,
claims of unfair competition and interference with economic relations.
2. Original jurisdiction of this action is conferred upon this court by Title 28, United States
Code, § § 1331 and 1338( a) and, for the related claims of unfair competition, conversion, and
interference with economic relations, by §§ 1338(b).
3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 United States Code §§ 1391 and 1400(a).
THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Matthew Katz is a producer and owner of music having created the bands
jefferson airplane, Moby Grape, It's a Beautiful Day, Indian Puddin .and Pipe, Tripsichord, and
Franternity of Man. Freelight. Little Eva. Tim Hardin, Blue Darts. Rainforest Rhapsody in the Key
of Bali,and Rainforest Rhapsody in the Key of Hmvaii. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of
California.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT
NAPSTER, INC. is a corporation operating within the State of California which participates in the
international unauthorized copying and distribution of musical sound recordings by means of a web
site at napster .com
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT JOHN W.
FANNING is a resident of the state of Massachusetts and is the registrant of the domain name .
napster.com.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT SHA WN
FANNING is a resident of the state of California and is the co-founder of napster.com.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT SEAN
PARKER is a resident of the state of California and is the co-founder naQster.com.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT HANK
BARRY is a resident of the state of California and is the CEO of DEFENDANT NAPSTER, INC. by
virtue of an investment into DEFENDANT NAPSTER, INC. by his company DEFENDANT
HUMMER WINBLAD.
10. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT
HUMMER WINBLAD is a company operating within the state of California and is part owner of
DEFENDANT NAPSTER, INC. by virtue of a $15 Million venture capital investment.
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT BOB
BOZEMAN is a resident of the state of California and is part owner of DEFENDANT NAPSTER,
INC. by virtue ofa $2 Million private investment by his company svangels.com.
12. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT YOSI
AMRAM is a resident of the state of California and is part owner of DEFENDANT NAPSTER, INC
by virtue of a $2 Million private investment.
13. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT JOE
KRAUS is a resident of the state of California and is part owner of DEFENDANT NAPSTER, INC.
by virtue of a $2 Million private investment.
14. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT FRED
DURST is a resident of the state of California and is the leader of the musical band LIMP BIZKIT
who is participating and encouraging the international unauthorized copying and distribution of
musical sound recordings by perfonning on a free tour promoted by DEFENDANT NAPSTER, INC.
15. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT ROGER
MCGUINN is a resident of the state of California and is the leader of the musical band THE BYRDS
who is participating and encouraging the international unauthorized copying and distribution of
musical sound recordings by speaking positively of DEFENDANT NAPSTER, INC.
16. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEFENDANT
JONATHAN H. GREENE is a resident of the state of California, city of Los Angeles, who has
::opied and distributed musical sound recordings controlled by Plaintiff Matthew Katz by using
Napster .com in violation of copyright and trademark laws.
17. The true names and capacities of all defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10,000,
is unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will
seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities when the same
1
have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are inforned and believe and on that basis aver that said defendants
are liable to plaintiff as a result of their participation in all or some of the acts hereinafter set forth.
BACKGROUND FACTS
18. Defendant Napster, Inc. ("Napster") operates a web site at.napster.com which enables it's
users to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music on an unprecedented scale. By its own
account, Napster is responsible for allowing millions of unauthorized downloads of copyrighted
songs 24 hours a day, every day of the week. In Japan, Australia, Gennany, England, and China
nearly every hit song by every significant recording artist can be found on Napster. Napster's
unscrupulous "music free for all" continues to attract users at a rate unmatched in the history of the
Internet. At the filing of this complaint in July, 2000, Napster has 20 million users. Attached hereto
as Exhibit " A " is a report from CyberAtlas which shows that in just one month from April to May of
2000, Napster grew from the 99th to the 48th most popular site on the Internet, surpassing several
media giants including ESPN and MTV. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a complete printout of an
article on Napster which was the June 5,2000 cover story on Newsweek Magazine.
19. The possibilities afforded by the digital distribution of music have sparked an
entrepreneurial zeal. Internet start-ups are creating exciting businesses to take advantage of the
opportunities that these new technologies make possible. Unfortunately, in addition to creating
opportunities for new and creative models for legitimate business, the Internet has also created a new
avenue for piracy on an unprecedented scale. Physical goods piracy in the United States costs the
recording industry over $300 million per year. Around the world, physical goods piracy costs the
recording industry $4.5 billion annually. If this court condones Napster's activities and Napster is
allowed to continue to steal music, the floodgates will open. Within months the pirate market will
control music sales not only in the United States, but around the globe. The worldwide growth of
creativity will be stifled and the music industry will slowly cease to exist. Bands which once sought
to be discovered will no longer have incentive to create quality music. Movies, Television, Literature
Poetry, and Art will follow and soon America will be a country devoid of the arts.
20. In an effort to ensure its growing legion of users a safe haven for piracy, Napster
promises complete user anonymity by collecting no user data. The site boasts that it does not
maintain logs of activity or other information that could be subpoenaed to reveal the infringing
activities of its users. It is also impossible to save or print a search result which made it nearly
impossible to gather evidence of the infringing users. Plaintiff was forced to acquire a special
software program which produced the printouts attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
21. Napster enables this massive infringement to occur by providing it's users with a hub of
central computer servers which constantly index a database of available songs, along with proprietar
software to facilitate the rapid and efficient copying of those recordings. Once connected to
Napster's servers, Napster users choose which songs they would like to download from other Napste
users. Likewise, users choose which of their own song files stored on their computer hard drives the:
want to make available for copying by the tens of millions ofNapster users. In providing this searc]
and copy service (completely free to Napster users), Napster has attracted a substantial user base
which will allow it to generate millions of dollars in future revenues from advertising and product
sales. Indeed, despite the fact that Napster presently has no source of revenue, as of July 2000,
Defendants have successfully acquired $17 million dollars in venture capital and private investment
into the company. Napster's largest investor, DEFENDANT HUMMER WINBLAD, can
particularly benefit from the list millions ofNapster users in that it is the primary owner in a similar
music web site at www .liquidaudio.com. Thus, Defendants have and will continue to build a thrivin
business on the daily, massive, an unauthorized infringement of copyrighted music.
22. Most Internet piracy of sound recordings is accomplished using a technology known as
MP3, which stands for Motion Picture Expert Group 1, Audio Layer 3. MP3 is simply an algorithm
that compresses a digital music file by a ratio of approximately 12: 1, thereby reducing the size of the
file so that it more easily and quickly can be downloaded over the Internet. Once downloaded (ie.
copied and saved to a computer hard drive), a music file can be played from the computer, or further
copied onto home or car stereo equipment, or portable players designed for use with MP3 music.
23. While there is nothing inherently unlawful about the MP3 format, the predominant use of
the MP3 fonnat is in the trafficking of pirated sound recordings. This fact is well known, has been
reported widely in the press, and is known to defendants. It also is well known, and has been widely
reported, that no established record companies have authorized their commercially released sound
recordings to be reproduced and distributed in the MP3 fonnat because the MP3 fonnat does not
contain any anti-piracy security coding.
24. Napster promotes its service as "list(ing) only those files available right now" for
immediate download. To do this, Napster continuously monitors millions of users to keep track of
when they log on and off. As soon as a user logs on, that user's MP3 music files are inventoried and
added to the Napster song file database. As soon as a user logs off, that user's song files are
identified and eliminated from the database. Thus, Napster actively updates its database millions of
times each day.
25. Napster does more than simply tell users what songs are available and which users have
them. Napster creates an actual "link" to each respective music file. Thus, the only thing Napster
users need to do to get the music they want is click on the song. The Napster software automatically
downloads the music file from one Napster users' hard drive and saves it to the other users' hard
drive. Napster facilitates the entire transaction.
26. Napster stays involved in the entire download process to ensure that the distribution and
copying of the selected recording is completed. In the event a download is interrupted because, for
example, the user offering the recording has logged off, Napster will automatically locate the same
recording from another Napster user and resume the download at the point it was interrupted, all
without any involvement by the infringing Napster user. Napster touts itself as "the world's largest
MP 3 music library." It brags that "Napster ensures the availability of every song online by
connecting you live with millions of songs found in other MP3 listeners' music collections. With
Napster, you'll never come up empty handed when searching for your favorite music again". Napster
also has boasted that, through its service, 'you canforget wading through page after page of
unknown artists."
27. Plaintiff, creator of the original world famous San Francisco bands including jefferson
~
airplane, Moby Grape and It's a Beautiful Day, played a large part in creating and has been involved
with the San Francisco music scene since it's inception in the early 1960's. Other original San
Francisco Bands who are also being hurt by Napster's thievery include: Quicksilver Messenger
Service, Country Joe and the Fish. Tripsichord Music Box, Janis Joplin, Big Brother and the Holdin
Company, Indian Puddin and Pipe, Fraternity of Man, Tim Hardin, Buffalo Springfield, The
Young bloods and the Grateful Dead. These bands heavily contributed to the shaping of American
culture and deserve the fruit of their labor which Defendants continue to take for themselves.
28. At all times relevant herein, Defendants had the right and ability to supervise and control
the infringing conduct of its users by refusing to index and create links to infringing music files, but
Defendants have failed and refused to exercise such supervision and control. Defendants could very
easily refuse to perfonn it's search and copy service for songs which the owner has not given
authorization. Defendants have not done so however, because Defendants know it's success is
dependant on stealing from artists who would never allow their music to be given away. Defendant~
should only index, search, and copy songs which the artist has given consent. For example, a new 0'
unknown artist may wish to give away music or even an established artist may wish to allow certain
songs to be given away.
29. On many occasions over the last year, Defendants have been given notice that it's milliori
of users are violating copyright laws by nearly every record company in existence. The Recording
Industry Association of America, along with numerous artists including Metallica and Dr. Dre, have
requested that Defendants cease and desist their activities. Plaintiff supports the position taken by
these artists. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" are letters dated May 30, 2000, June 1, 2000, June 15,
2000 and June 16,2000 in which Plaintiff gave Defendants notice ofhis copyright and trademark
rights along with his exclusive right to manufacture and sell certain musical recordings. Despite
Plaintiffs notice and demand to cease and desist, Defendants knowingly continue to allow it's users
to search and copy Plaintiffs music in violation of the laws of copyright. Defendant's wilful conduc
is despicable and has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff grave and irreparable harm.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(17 U.S.C. && 101 et sec.)
[Against Jonathan H. Greene]
30. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs I through 29 inclusi,
and incorporates them herein by this reference.
31. In 1968, plaintiff applied to the Register of Copyrights for a Certificate of Registration fa
the "It's a Beautiful Day" musical composition "Bulgaria". The.Certiticate was issued by the Regist{
Df Copyrights in November of 1968 as Copyright Reg. No. EU 83452 (herein referred to as "Musical
Composition").
32. In 1966, plaintiff applied to the Register of Copyrights and received Certificates of
Registration for at least the following "Moby GraQe" musical compositions:
"Omaha" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2037;
"Come in the Morning" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2038;
"Eight O Five" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2039;
"Indifference" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2040;
"Mister Blues" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2041 ;
"Fall On You" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2042;
"Sitting By The W!ndow" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2043;
"Changes" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2044;
"Ain't No Use" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2045;
"L~ Me" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2046;
"Naked If I Want To" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2047;
"Hey Grandma" Copyright Reg. No. EU 2048; and
"Someday" Copyright Reg. No. EU 11568.
In addition to such copyrighted work, Plaintiff is the publisher and claims the exclusive right5
o certain compositions written by Bob Mosley, Skip Spence, Jerry Miller, Don Stevenson, and Peter
Lewis, as performed on Moby GraQe Records (Musical Compositions) and all related artwork. The
Musical Compositions referred to above include, but are not limited to, Moby Grape's self-titled firs1
album (SFS 04805), the Heart Album (SFS 04830), and Mosley Grape Live at Indigo Ranch (SFS
04880).
33. Plaintiff is also the publisher and claims the exclusive rights to certain compositions wfitt,
by Skip Spence, Marty Balin, and Paul Kantner from the band jefferson airplane including at least th
following compositions: (1) Don't Slip Away; (2) Blues from an Airplane; (3) Runaround; (4) JPP
McStep Blues; (5) Runnin' Round this World; (6) It's Alright; and (7) My Best Friend.
34. Plaintiff is also the publisher and claims the exclusive rights to certain compositions writtt
by the following bands: Indian Puddin ' and Pipe, Tripsichord, and Franternity of Man, Freelight,
Little Eva, Tim Hardin, Blue Darts, Rainforest Rhapsody in the Key of Bali, and Rainforest
Rhapsody in the Key of HmtJaii.
35. Additionally, plaintiff has entered into various agreements by which he has obtained the
sole, exclusive, and complete right to manufacture, distribute, and sell phonorecords embodying
certain Moby Grape and It's A Beautiful Day recorded musical performances some of which were
initially "fixed" prior to February 15, 1972, and therefore are subject to protection under state
statutory and common law.
36. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jonathan H. Greene has utilized napster.com to gain access
to sound recordings containing plaintiffs Musical Compositions and thereafter knowingly and
willfully directly copied plaintiff s Musical Compositions in their entirety and thereafter distributed
such Musical Compositions as his own. Defendant Jonathan H. Greene has made unauthorized
copies of Plaintiff s music by copying the music set out above from the hard drives of napster .corn
users and has then made that same music available to other napster.com users via napster's search ant
copy servIce.
37. Since at least June of2000, Defendant Jonathan H. Greene has disseminated sound
recordings containing Plaintiffs Musical Compositions in large volumes throughout the United State
and many foreign countries.
38. Each infringement of plaintiffs' rights to the Copyrighted Recordings set out herein
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
--
CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et sea.)
[Against All Defendants ]
46. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45 inclusiv
and incorporates them herein by this reference.
47. As described above, a tremendous amount of copyright infringement of Plaintiff's music
takes place on and by virtue of Defendants' napster .com service every day. These infringements occ
whenever a Napster user, without the authorization of Plaintiff, downloads an MP3 version of
Plaintiff's music from another user's computer onto his or her own. Each and every one of these
infringements is facilitated, encouraged. and made possible by Defendants.
48. At all times relevant herein, Defendants had the right and ability to supervise and control
the infringing conduct of its users by refusing to index and create links to infringing music files but
Defendants have failed to exercise such supervision and control. As a direct and proximate result of
I
i such failure, Napster users have infringed plaintiffs copyrights in the Copyrighted Recordings as set
forth above.
49. Defendants substantially contribute to the unauthorized copying and distribution of
Plaintiff's music by providing the site and facilities for known infringing activity.
50. Defendants FRED DURST and ROGER MCGUINN substantially contribute to the
international unauthorized copying and distribution of musical sound recordings by encouraging,
speaking positively, and by participating in free concerts promoting Defendant NAPSTER, INC.
51. Defendants HANK BARRY, HUMMER WINBLAD, BOB BOZEMAN, YOSI AMRAM
and JOE KRAUS substantially contribute to the international unauthorized copying and distribution
of musical sound recordings by investing substantial sums of money. supporting, guiding,
encouraging, and promoting Defendant NAPSTER, INC for their own future benefit.
52. Defendant JONA THAN H. GREENE substantially contributes to the international
unauthorized copying and distribution of musical sound recordings by making Plaintiff s music
available for copying to other Napster users.

53. Since at least November 12, 1999, Defendants have had knowledge of the widespread
infringement of copyrights by Napster users by virtue of a letter to Napster from the RIAA
(Recording Industry Association of America). Moreover, Defendants have had knowledge of
Plaintiffs copyright rights by virture of Plaintiffs repeated letters to defendants. True copies of .
letters dated May 30, 2000, June 1, 2000, June 15, 2000 and June 16, 2000 are attached hereto as
Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein. Despite this knowledge and repeated requests to cease and
desist, Defendants knowingly continue to allow Napster users to violate Plaintiffs copyrights and
otherwise promote the use of the Napster software.
54. Through its conduct averred herein, Defendants have engaged and continue to participate
in the business of knowingly and systematically inducing, causing, and materially contributing to the
above-described unauthorized reproductions and distributions of copies of the Copyrighted
Recordings referred to herein and thus to the infringement of plaintiff s copyrights.
55. Each infringement of plaintiffs' rights to the Copyrighted Recordings set out herein
constitutes a separate and distinct act of infringement.
56. The foregoing acts of infringement by Defendants have been willful, intentional,
purposeful, and in disregard of and indifference to the rights of plaintiff.
57. Napster's conduct, as averred herein,. constitutes contributory infringement of plaintiffs' .
copyrights and plaintiffs' exclusive rights under copyright in violatioQpf Sections 106, 115, and 501
of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,115,. and 501.
58. As a direct and proximate result of the contributory infringements by Defendants of
plaintiffs copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright, plaintiff is entitled to damages and to
Defendants' profits pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) for each infringement.
59. Alternatively, plaintiff is entitled to the maximum statutory damages, pursuant to 17
U.S.C. § 504(c), in the amount of$100,000 w"ith respect to each work infringed, or such other
amounts as may be proper under 17 USC § 504( c ). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that
basis avers, that such statutory damages shall exceed $10,000,000.
60. Plaintiff is further entitled to his attorneys' fees and full costs pursuant to 17 USC. § 505.
~
61. The probable and foreseeable result of Defendants' wrongful conduct has been and will
continue to be to deprive plaintiff of the benefits of selling plaintiff's Musical Compositions and oth
related products, to deprive plaintiff of goodwill, and to injure plaintiff's relations with present and
prospective customers.
62. Plaintiff alleges that it has lost, and will continue to lose, s~bstantial revenues from the sa
of its Musical Compositions and related products and will sustain damage as a result of defendants ,
wrongful conduct and defendants' distribution of infringing products. Defendants' wrongful conduc1
has also deprived and will continue to deprive plaintiff of opportunities for expanding goodwill.
63. Defendants' wilful conduct, as set out herein, is causing and, unless enjoined and restraine
by this Court, will continue to cause plaintiff great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be
compensated or measured in money. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C
§ 502, plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting further contributory
infringements of plaintiff s copyrights.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et sea.)
[ Against All Defendants ]
64. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 63 inclusivc
and incorporates them herein by this reference.
65. At all times relevant herein, Defendants had the right and ability to supervise and control
the infringing conduct of its users by refusing to index and create links to infringing music files but
Defendants have failed to exercise such supervision and control. As a direct and proximate result of
such failure, Napster users have infringed plaintiffs copyrights in the Copyrighted Recordings as set
forth above.
66. Defendants substantially contribute to the unauthorized copying and distribution of
Plaintiff s music by providing the site and facilities for known infringing activity .
67. Defendants FRED DURST and ROGER MCGUINN substantially contribute to the
61. The probable and foreseeable result of Defendants' wrongful conduct has been and will
continue to be to deprive plaintiff of the benefits of selling plaintiff's Musical Compositions and oth
related products, to deprive plaintiff of goodwill, and to injure plaintiff's relations with present and
prospective customers.
62. Plaintiff alleges that it has lost, and will continue to lose, s~bstantial revenues from the sa
of its Musical Compositions and related products and will sustain damage as a result of defendants ,
wrongful conduct and defendants' distribution of infringing products. Defendants' wrongful conduc1
has also deprived and will continue to deprive plaintiff of opportunities for expanding goodwill.
63. Defendants' wilful conduct, as set out herein, is causing and, unless enjoined and restraine
by this Court, will continue to cause plaintiff great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be
compensated or measured in money. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C
§ 502, plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting further contributory
infringements of plaintiff s copyrights.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et sea.)
[ Against All Defendants ]
64. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 63 inclusivc
and incorporates them herein by this reference.
65. At all times relevant herein, Defendants had the right and ability to supervise and control
the infringing conduct of its users by refusing to index and create links to infringing music files but
Defendants have failed to exercise such supervision and control. As a direct and proximate result of
such failure, Napster users have infringed plaintiffs copyrights in the Copyrighted Recordings as set
forth above.
66. Defendants substantially contribute to the unauthorized copying and distribution of
Plaintiff s music by providing the site and facilities for known infringing activity .
67. Defendants FRED DURST and ROGER MCGUINN substantially contribute to the
international unauthorized copying and distribution of musical sound recordings by encouraging,
speaking positively, and by participating in free concerts promoting Defendant NAPSTER, INC.
68. Defendants HANK BARRY, HUMMER WINBLAD, BOB BOZEMAN, YOSI AMRAM
and JOE KRAUS substantially contribute to the international unauthorized copying and distribution
of musical sound recordings by investing substantial sums of money, supporting, guiding,
encouraging, and promoting Defendant NAPSTER, INC for their own future benefit.
69. Defendant JONATHAN H. GREENE substantially contributes to the international
unauthorized copying and distribution of musical sound recordings by making Plaintiff's music
available for copying to other Napster users.
70. Defendants have derived substantial financial benefit from infringements of plaintiffs'
copyrights by Napster users in that. among other things, Napster has received over $17 million in
investment capital from Defendants HANK BARRY, HUMMER WINBLAD, BOB BOZEMAN,
YOSI AMRAM, and JOE KRAUS all of whom intend to profit from the widespread copyright
infringement described herein.
71. Plaintiff is also informed and believes that Napster does now, and intends to further in the
future, solicit advertising and charge fees for advertising on Napster. Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and on that basis alleges, that the number and amount of these fees is related directly to the
number of users which Napster is able to attract which, in turn, is dependent on Napster's facilitation
of and participation in the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of plaintiff's sound recordings.
Napster's largest investor, Defendant HUMMER WINBLAD, can particularly benefit from the list
millions ofNapster users in that it is the primary owner in a similar music web site at
www.liquidaudio.com. Thus, Napster has undertaken a purposeful strategy to make its company
I more attractive to potential investors and advertisers by infringing on Plaintiff's rights.
72. The foregoing acts of infringement by Defendants have been willful, intentional, and
purposeful, in disregard of and indifference to the rights of plaintiffs.
73. Defendants' conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes vicarious infringement of plaintiff s
copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright. in violation of Sections 106, 115. and 50 1 of the
~
(internal note-end page 14- resume beginning page 15 through 24)