INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Napster - Here Come Da Judge  (Read 673 times)

Harry The Hipster

  • Guest
Napster - Here Come Da Judge
« on: February 23, 2002, 01:34:27 am »

From ystrdays NYT:

"...the judge in the case allowed Napster to seek evidence that the record companies colluded to monopolize the digital music market

In her ruling, Judge Marilyn Patel of Federal District Court in Northern California wrote that while the evidence before the court had thus far been limited, she found reason for concern given that the five major record labels have created two joint ventures to distribute music over the Internet themselves.

"These ventures look bad, smell bad and sound bad," Judge Patel wrote. She added, "If Napster is correct, these plaintiffs are attempting the near monopolization of the digital distribution market."

"...[The judge went on:]the questioned conduct of the record companies is continuing. "The extent of the prospective damage is massive," the judge wrote, noting several sentences later that "the resulting injury affects both Napster and the public interest."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/23/technology/23MUSI.html

"I am shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on here."

                                   -Renault (Claude Rains) in Casablanca
Logged

Charlemagne 8

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1999
RE:Napster - Here Come Da Judge
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2002, 06:18:37 am »

"The companies have also said they are negotiating in good faith to license music to Internet start-ups."

Say What?!?!
Logged
That's right.
I'm cool.

Charlemagne 8

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1999
RE:Napster - Here Come Da Judge
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2002, 10:49:06 am »

[former member],
Say What?!?!
Actually, no offense was taken. Your opinion is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.
I probably should have identified the quote as from the above mentioned NYT article. Of course they are acting in good faith toward their own interests but that is not what is generally meant by "in good faith". Apparently Judge Patel agrees that that is a more or less ridiculous claim that they are "acting in good faith".
I remember the hoops that JimH had to jump through, apparently all in vain.
Keep your opinions coming, though. I may or may not agree but you are always interesting. If everybody here agreed all the time, this place would get very boring.

CVIII
Logged
That's right.
I'm cool.
Pages: [1]   Go Up