New Filing Details Napster Failure to Comply with Court Order

Recording Industry Asks Court to Order Napster to Comply by Either Adopting Technology Filters or Switching their Site to a “Filter In” System Only

Washington, DC - March 27, 2001 - Noting that virtually all the music Napster claims they have filtered is still available, the recording industry today, in papers filed in U.S. District Court, outlined the numerous problems with Napster’s “archaic” filtering system and asked that the service either adopt superior technology-based filters or revamp into a “filter-in” system only. Under a “filter-in” model, Napster would only permit those works on their system that are authorized to be on their system.

“Napster seems to have adopted the most porous filter available. Do they refuse to employ an effective filter for fear that it might actually work?” said Hilary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. “Calling this type of filter effective is like calling an umbrella full of holes a hurricane shelter. It’s not working, it never will work and Napster should be ordered to implement an effective filter or to change its filtering method.”

NAPSTER’S “ARCHAIC” FILTERING SYSTEM AN UTTER FAILURE

In today’s filing, the recording industry highlighted a number of problems with Napster’s decision to filter out material based on file names. Specifically, the recording industry highlighted that:

The recording industry identified numerous ways in which Napster users could avoid Napster’s so-called filter. Napster currently only filters out files that are named with both the artist and title of the track. However, since Napster allows users to search by artist, title or album this block is easily circumvented. For example, if a user were looking for Sting’s “Fields of Gold” and were unable to find the selection after entering in both terms in Napster’s search engine, the user could easily find the work by entering in only “Sting” or “Fields of Gold.”

Napster’s search functionality is more effective than its filter. While Napster’s filter works by blocking the precise artist and title, Napster’s search engine intentionally finds and returns inexact matches. Napster is clearly not blocking reasonable variations. While Napster claims to have blocked reasonable variations, it clearly is not doing so. Protected works may be found on Napster by searching by:

the artists full name and obvious shortened titles (e.g. searching by “Eurythmics” and “Sweet Dreams” located “Sweet Dreams Are Made of This.”) the full song title and shortened artist name (e.g. searching by “Bob” and “Blowing in the Wind” located Bob Dylan’s recording of that song.) obvious misspellings of artist names and correct song titles (e.g. searching by “Elivs” and “Heartbreak Hotel” located Elvis Presley’s song by that name.) obvious misspellings of song titles and correct artist names (e.g. searching by “Beatles” and “Yesterdays” located the Beatles’ recording of “Yesterday.”) artist name and a song title with a common word or number inserted (e.g. searching by “Eve 6” and “Inside and Out” located Eve 6’s “Inside Out.”) artist name or song title in pig latin (e.g. searching “enniferJ opezL” located songs by Jennifer Lopez)

RECORDING INDUSTRY CALLS ON NAPSTER TO EITHER ADOPT MODERN FILTERING OPTIONS…

· Unique Digital Checksums Would Filter Out Files Regardless of File Names

The recording industry noted that Napster has the ability to block specific sound recordings using digital checksums. The ability to collect and identify a specific checksum is already part of Napster’s operating system. Napster would have to do very little to implement checksum in its filtering system. A checksum is a numerical value that may be used to identify the contents of a computer file. Consequently, a checksum could identify identical MP3 files – regardless of whether they have different file names.

· Digital Fingerprinting Would Filter Out Files Regardless of File Names

Similarly, all MP3 files may be analyzed for unique digital characteristics, or digital fingerprints. These fingerprints may in turn be used to identify specific protected works – again, regardless of the file name. There exists proprietary software on the market today capable of generating these digital fingerprints. Napster is not only aware of this technology but has actually met with representatives of companies that produce this technology. To date, Napster has not attempted to block protected works using digital fingerprinting.

OR TO REVAMP NAPSTER INTO A “FILTER-IN” ONLY SYSTEM

The recording industry concurrently argued that if Napster is “unwilling to implement a proper or effective ‘filtering out’ system, the Court should require it to implement a ‘filtering in’ system.” Under this model, Napster would index and permit the distribution only of those musical works for which it has obtained authorization; no other works would be permitted on the Napster system. The recording industry pointed out that the ”filter in” model is, in fact, how every other distributor of music or any copyrighted work must operate their business.

#####

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of the major music companies. Its members are the music labels that comprise the most vibrant record industry in the world. RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legitimate recorded music produced and sold in the United States.

In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect the intellectual property and First Amendment rights of artists and music labels; conduct consumer, industry and technical research; and monitor and review state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi- Platinum™ and Diamond sales awards as well as Los Premios De Oro y Platino™, an award celebrating Latin music sales.