Playing ball
Napster's proposal comes as the company is cooperating more closely with record labels. Still, it is the most aggressive self-policing effort by the company to date and the first tangible sign that Napster believes its chances of winning in court have faded.
Patel was less openly critical of Napster in the courtroom compared with a previous injunction hearing last July, when she dismissed the company's legal arguments almost immediately after both parties had presented their cases.
On Friday, she joked with Napster attorney Boies and appeared willing to take the company's interests into account in drafting her injunction.
"We're here to find out what the parties can live with, something that will work for everyone," Patel said.
Patel recessed without giving a specific date for her final decision, saying only that it would come soon. Napster has already asked a higher court to review last month's appeals court ruling, however. If a majority of the appellate judges agrees to hear that case, it could once again stall any ruling made by Patel over the next few days or weeks.
The key question in the case now is whether Napster eventually will be forced to do more to block copyrighted works from being traded on its network. In the past, the company has said it can't differentiate between copyrighted and non-copyrighted works and would have to shut down if it were forced to separate the two. Under its current filtering proposal, the company believes it can address copyright violations, although it's unclear whether this will satisfy the court.
