hich a service provider plays the role of a 'conduit' for the communications of others." H.R. Rep. No. 105-551(II), 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998), 1998 WL 414916, at *130. Drawing inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, this court cannot say that Napster serves as a conduit for the connection itself, as opposed to the address information that makes the connection possible. Napster enables or facilitates the initiation of connections, but these connections do not pass through the system within the meaning of subsection 512(a). Neither party has adequately briefed the meaning of "routing" in subsection 512(a), nor does the legislative history shed light on this issue. Defendant tries to make "routing" and "providing connections" appear synonymous--stating, for example, that "the central Napster server routes the transmission by providing the Host's address to the Napster browser that is installed on and in use by User's computer." Def. Br. at 16. However, the court doubts that Congress would have used the terms "routing" and "providing connections" disjunctively if [*25] they had the same meaning. n7 It is clear from both parties' submissions that the route of the allegedly infringing material goes through the Internet from the host to the requesting user, not through the Napster server. See, e.g., Def. Br. at 13 ("Indeed, the content of the MP3 files are routed without even passing through Napster's Servers."). The court holds that routing does not occur through the Napster system. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n7 Napster sometimes appears to recognize a distinction between the two terms. For example, it states that "the system provides remote users with connection to each other and allows them to transmit and route the information as they choose." Def. Reply Br. at 2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Because Naps...
