The article commenting on the Napster situation is in error. The author continually used words like "ruling" and "finding" when nothing of the sort took place this week. A SF Judge essentially agreed to place an injunction on Napster's service at the request of the RIAA. There was no "ruling" or "finding" for or against anyone. It was an injunction pending the outcome of the RIAA's copyright infringement suit. Please do not muddy up the issue by declaring that the Judge in SF has made a definitive, precedent-setting ruling. It just creates more misinformation.
Slashdot Mirror
The article commenting on the Napster situation is in error. The author continually used words like "ruling" and "finding" when nothing of the sort took place this week. A SF Judge essentially agreed to place an injunction on Napster's service at the request of the RIAA. There was no "ruling" or "finding" for or against anyone. It was an injunction pending the outcome of the RIAA's copyright infringement suit. Please do not muddy up the issue by declaring that the Judge in SF has made a definitive, precedent-setting ruling. It just creates more misinformation.