Which statement describes the Napster case outcome?

• A. Sharing music files was deemed fair use.
• B. The service was allowed to continue without limitations.
• C. Napster violated privacy laws.
• D. The court ruled that sharing music files is not fair use.

Answer: (D)

This question tests how fair use is evaluated when a service enables others to copy and share copyrighted music. In the Napster case, the court found that Napster itself infringed copyright because it primarily functioned to facilitate widespread distribution of songs without authorization. Fair use is a limited, context-specific defense, and the court determined that sharing entire songs for free did not transform the works or add new value. Looking at the four factors, the use was not transformative and had a commercial/instrumental aspect, the works are original and protected, an entire portion was copied, and there was a significant negative effect on the market for licensed copies. Because the service facilitated infringing activity rather than adding a new, legitimate purpose, the court ruled that the sharing of music files was not fair use. This outcome underscores that platforms that enable infringement can be held liable, and it contrasts with notions that such sharing could be allowed or that privacy issues were the central concern.