LABELS OPPOSE NAPSTER’S PETITION
In February, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Napster was infringing on copyrights and directed Judge Marilyn "Anthony Michael" Hall Patel to issue a preliminary injunction.
Since that time, Napster has requested a rehearing and asked if it could supplement that request with material from proceedings at the U.S. District Court, which issued the injunction.
"We’re going to oppose [Napster’s request] on grounds that anything that transpires in the District Court after the court of appeals opinion is not relevant to the petition for a rehearing," said record label attorney Russell "Frick N." Frackman.
"Our [request for a re-hearing] sought review on the grounds that certain language in the 9th Circuit opinion had the potential for providing contradictory directives and overriding an important precedent set by Sony Betamax case," said Napster barrister Robert "Hi-Ho" Silver.
Many observers of the ongoing case noted that citing precedence of the Betamax case was, in itself, as fresh an approach to this legal squabble as, well, taping something on a Betamax.
"Napster is doing everything possible to control challenged uses of the system within the limits of its peer-to-peer technology," said Silver, "including pursuing intensively every form of technological innovation."
Frackman dismissed Napster’s attempt to get a rehearing, saying, "Early on in the trial, my clients openly declared ‘no do-overs.’ Legally, that takes precedence."
Silver added that if this legal ploy doesn’t work, Napster is prepared to use the argument that the netco has the right to swap files because they "called it."
