access." H.R. Rep. 105-551(II), 1998 WL 414916, at *154. Napster attempts to refute plaintiffs' argument by noting that subsection 512(i) does not specify when the copyright compliance policy must be in place. Although this characterization of subsection 512(i) is facially accurate, it defies the logic of making formal notification to users or subscribers a prerequisite to exemption from monetary liability. The fact that Napster developed and notified its users of a formal policy after the onset of this action should not moot plaintiffs' claim to monetary relief for past harms. Without further documentation, defendant's argument that it has satisfied subsection 512(i) is [*28] merely conclusory and does not support summary adjudication in its favor. Summary adjudication is also inappropriate because Napster has not shown that it reasonably implemented a policy for terminating repeat infringers. See 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(A) (requiring "reasonable" implementation of such a policy). If Napster is formally notified of infringing activity, it blocks the infringer's password so she cannot log on to the Napster service using that password. See Kessler Dec. P 23. Napster does not block the IP addresses of infringing users, however, and the parties dispute whether it would, be feasible or effective to do so. See Frackman Dec., Exh. 1 (Kessler Dep.), at 205:4-7. Plaintiffs aver that Napster wilfully turns a blind eye to the identity of its users -- that is, their real names and physical addresses -- because their anonymity allows Napster to disclaim responsibility for copyright infringement. Hence, plaintiffs contend, "infringers may readily reapply to the Napster system to recommence their infringing downloading and uploading of MP3 music files." Pl. Br. at 24. Plaintiffs' expert, computer security researcher Daniel Farmer, [*29] declared that he conducted tests in which he easily deleted all traces of his former Napster identity, convincing Nap...
