Three appellate judges were randomly chosen to take Napster's future in their hands. Although they collectively have little experience with significant technology decisions, a few past rulings provide some hints at how they may think. In that 1996 case, Fonovisa vs. Cherry Auction , Schroeder ruled that a flea market was liable for the sale of illegally copied cassettes on its premises. Attorneys say that logic could apply to Napster. Ronald Reagan appointed Beezer to the court in 1984.
Early experience includes work with nonprofit housing and low-income advocacy groups.
That's the consequence they face. It is Napster's arguments that hold the potential to reshape widely held assumptions about copyright law, however. The company is relying on three sets of laws and precedents to support its service. Patel initially dismissed that argument, saying it didn't apply to Napster since internal documents showed its service had been explicitly created to trade copyrighted material. That part of the ruling prompted several technology industry groups, including the Consumer Electronics Association, to file their own briefs in the ongoing appeal.