The case begins A&M Records, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Napster, Inc. for vicarious infringement. A brief explanation of vicarious infringement is when a party is responsible, such as Napster, Inc. for infringing conducted by another when A&M Records and Napster share an employer-employee relationship. As Napster attained huge popularity by sharing mp3 music files among peer-to-peers. As Napster becomes more popular, it caught attentions of major music companies that are unhappy about their music being distributed on the internet for free. The court first decided whether the musics were fair use which is a privilege to promote the art of music by benefiting to the public without permissions. Second, Napster allowing peer-to-peer downloading or copying the music for personal use is a “repeated and exploitative” use of copyrighted works violate the purpose of fair use doctrine. Direct economic use is not require to prove commercial use. As long as its a repeatedly copying of copyrighted works, even is not the intention for sales is constitute commercial use. The online sharing benefits the people avoid spending money on legal copies in the market, which the court find it reducing sales of the albums. Activities like files exchanges over the internet is a contributory infringement would only encourage Napster users to download and copying musics whether its purpose is for personal use or selling illegal copies to others for profit were unknown. They could make copies and sell it to others for profit. Studies shown that the online sharing are mostly college students who does not have lots money to spend $20 on original copyrighted albums. Therefore, it shown a major loss of albums sales within college markets. As for defendants, Napster has hired experts testifies that the sharing of music between peer-to-peer actually