Napster has moved to block the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) recent request for an injunction that would shut down Napster’s controversial MP3 file-trading network while both parties await the start of their court battle.

The court’s impending decision on whether or not to grant the RIAA’s request for an injunction rests largely upon the degree of likelihood that the RIAA will win its copyright-infringement suit against Napster. The company argued in a 44-page brief filed on Monday (7/3) that the RIAA is not likely to win the suit.

The AHRA argument

Napster based a majority of its argument on guidelines set forth in the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

That act--which was spawned after the introduction of digital audio tape (DAT) recording devices--allows for the sale and use of certain "devices" to make copies of digital and analog music for noncommercial purposes, which, Napster argues, is exactly what users who trade songs via the Napster network are doing.

“Plaintiffs, now fearing the ease with which home copying can occur over the Internet, seek to renege on the bargain struck in the AHRA,” said Napster lawyers in the brief. “But there is nothing in the language of the AHRA, or any precedent under it, suggesting that consumers’ noncommercial copying is permissible if only a few consumers do it. Plaintiffs’ desire to narrow the statutory immunity due to technological change must be addressed to Congress, not this court.”

In the brief, Napster also relied on an appellate court's decision regarding the AHRA.

Last year, the RIAA took the makers of the Rio, a portable MP3 player that copies MP3 files from computer hard drives, to court, claiming that Rio manufacturer Diamond should be required to pay the recording industry royalties from the sales of the device. The RIAA based its argument on language in the AHRA that requires DAT recording device manufacturers to pay the recording industry a royalty from the sales of DAT recorders.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that, while the copying “devices” protected by the AHRA included neither computer hard drives nor portable MP3 players, the makers of the Rio player did not have to pay royalties to the recording industry.

“If a consumer can copy an MP3 file from his or her hard drive [to a portable MP3 player] without violating the copyright laws,” argued Napster’s lawyers in the brief, “it is self-evident that Napster’s Internet directory service does not violate the copyright laws either.”

However, the AHRA does not clearly define whether or not the Napster network falls within the guidelines of an acceptable "device" for making copies of music for non-commercial use.

The VCR argument

Napster also compared its current battle with the recording industry to the battle that VCR makers won in the early ‘80s.

In that case, Sony successfully argued that, despite movie industry claims to the contrary, the VCR had plenty of non-infringement uses. By that standard, Napster argues, it too must be allowed to operate.

“Under the Sony doctrine, it is enough to show a single potential non-infringing use of social or commercial importance,” said Napster in its brief, referring to Napster’s ability to allow unsigned bands to circulate their music via the Internet.

“Napster’s new artist program has already enlisted 17,000 new artists who expressly approve of the sharing of their music through Napster,” reads the brief. “By comparison, the major labels released a total of 2,600 albums last year, and only 150 of those songs were played on the radio on a regular basis.”

The constitutional argument

The company’s brief also wielded a claim that shutting down Napster would take away its users’ ability to share files in a non-infringing way and, thus, would deny those users of their First Amendment rights.

“Plaintiff’s have virtually no likelihood of success ... because the relief they seek is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution,” reads the brief.

In addition to these latest arguments, Napster once again maintained in the brief its most enduring point: that its network merely allows users to share files, and that the company itself can not be held liable for any illegal activity its users engage in.

Napster filed its brief in Federal District Court in San Francisco. The brief was co-authored by attorney David Boies, who recently joined Napster's legal team, and was also counsel for the U.S. government in its anti-trust suit against Microsoft. The RIAA will reportedly file its final response on the matter on July 13, and a judge is expected to rule on whether or not to grant an injunction against Napster on July 26.