The joint motion from the publishers and labels was filed late Tuesday, according to Jeff Knowles, a San Francisco attorney representing music publishers in their class-action lawsuit against Napster. The documents were made public today.

"We're seeking a ruling that, as a matter of law, Napster is liable for copyright infringement, and that the infringement was willful," Knowles said. He said a hearing on the motion is scheduled for early October.

Napster's woes stem from copyright infringement suits filed by the five major record companies in late 1999; a raft of publishers and others later followed with their own legal actions against the service. Napster has essentially lost every battle along the way, though appeals court judges have handed the company several partial victories by allowing Napster to continue operation on at least a temporary basis, pending the outcome of the lawsuits.

Under orders from 9th District Circuit Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, Napster has tried several methods of blocking its users' access to copyrighted files, beginning in March. Many of its attempts were foiled by clever users successfully seeking ways to foil the blocking technology.

Finally, on June 27, Napster disabled all older versions of its music-swapping Web browser, and forced those still wanting to use the service to download a new client containing "acoustic fingerprinting" technology, which identifies songs by comparing digital files with digital song samples stored on digital databases.

However, Napster said in early July that its database was not functioning properly with the new software, which was blocking even those few songs that were deemed legal to share. Napster shut down its servers and halted all file transfers until it could upgrade its databases. Patel barred it from restarting, ordering the company in mid-July to remain out of operation.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals later reversed that order, telling Napster it could power back up while the case is pending. To date, it has not done so, focusing instead on converting the free file-sharing service into a subscription service.

In their joint brief for summary judgment Tuesday, the labels and publishers accused Napster of knowingly contributing to direct copyright infringements of songs owned by artists, labels and publishers. It said Napster is also liable for "vicarious infringement." The brief further argues that Napster profited from its illegal activity and that its defenses against the suits hold no legal water.

"No case could be more appropriate for summary judgment on both liability and on willfulness," the brief states. "Napster set out to build, and was enormously successful in building, a business based on the intentional massive infringement of plaintiff's copyrighted music."

The document does not spare Napster's users, which it brands "direct infringers." But the brief blames Napster for their behavior.

"Napster ... provides the location, environment and support - including software, servers, indexing, search functions, firewall circumvention, moderators and staff - that enable its users to access each others' computer hard drives, and locate and transfer music files so that infringement can take place," the brief says.

The brief quotes Napster founder Shawn Fanning, declaring that Napster's purpose is to "bypass the record industry entirely, to make records obsolete and bring about the death of the CD."

It goes on: "Napster's Web site advertised the piratical nature of the system by bragging that, 'With Napster, you'll never come up empty-handed in your search for your favorite music again.' And, 'Napser virtually guarantees you'll find the music you want, when you want it.'"

The brief also accuses Napster of refusing to supervise its users' behavior or to filter out illegally exchanged songs until it was forced to by court order.

Spokesmen for the Recording Industry Association of America and attorneys for Napster could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.

Knowles said that the motion is an important step in the plaintiffs' case against the rogue music service.

"I would say that this is an important motion," he said. "This will bring to a conclusion a couple of the key issues in the case."

Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .