The Napster brief stated:
“This case is not about any diminution in the value of [the RIAA’s] copyrights; none has occurred or is reasonably foreseeable as the result of Napster. This case is about whether [the RIAA] can use their control over music copyrights to achieve control over Napster's decentralised technology and prevent it from transforming the internet in ways that might undermine their present chokehold on music promotion and distribution.”
Napster lawyer David Boies commented:
“The recording industry is attempting in this case to try to maintain control over music distribution. By repeatedly refusing Napster's offers of a reasonable license and opposing a compulsory license, they have demonstrated that they are not seeking to be appropriately compensated, but rather to kill or control a technology they view as competition.”
The brief reinforced Napster's key defences to the RIAA lawsuit, specifically the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). It was Napster’s reliance on the AHRA which led the Clinton administration to file a so-called “friend of the court” brief in support of the RIAA, saying the AHRA was never intended for the purposes Napster described. Napster's brief says that the RIAA ignored the very purpose of the Act's immunity provisions. The brief continued:
“There is no suggestion in the legislative history [of the AHRA] that the intent was to include only some primarily musical audio recordings… and to exclude other primarily musical audio works.”