Re:Ummmm.... (Score 1)

Interestingly, though, this was Napster's defense against the preliminary injunction. Their argument boiled down to, "If our music service is cut-off we will have to layoff employees and go out of business" (how they make money off people downloading music is anybody's guess,though).

Why do you have a double standard? Why do you think it is OK for Napster to make this argument, but not for the record companies to make it?

Because Napster was using that argument against the preliminary injunction, not as a reason they should win the trial (the argument there being, that they aren't doing anything wrong).

Keep in mind the purpose of preliminary injunctions. They are intended to protect both sides in the case from suffering irreperable damage until the trial is completed and a verdict declared. This is to prevent the side that wins the case from still 'losing', in all practical terms.

For example, suppose the recording companies win this case. If this happens, then presumably, they are in the right, legally speaking at least. Now if the recording companies were right in their assertion that Napster was doing them irreperable damage, then they would have already suffered great damages over the duration of the trial, even though they were in the right.

On the other hand, suppose Napster wins the case. This would mean that legally, they were in the right. Now, if Napster was correct in asserting that a preliminary injunction shutting them down would do them irreperable damage, and the injunction had been granted & enforced, then by the end of the trial, even though Napster was in the right (legally), they have suffered irreperable damages. An example of what those damages might be is market share; if napster had been shut down, and the majority of its users had switched to other alternatives (OpenNap, gnutella, freenet, etc), then at the end of the trial, even though Napster technically 'won', they still would have suffered the loss of the majority of their users to these other competing services. Once lost, they would have a hard time getting the users to return, as they don't offer anything that the other alternatives don't.In this scenario, the recording companies, despite having 'lost', they have, for all intents and purposes, won -- they managed to destroy/decimate Napster.

When dealing with preliminary injunctions, the 'destroying your business model' argument is a perfectly fine one to use, for either side. The problem, to which the poster you quoted was probably thinking of, arises when you try to apply the argument to beyond the duration of the trial; when you try to use that argument -- that someone is threating your business model, threatening your profits -- as a reason in and of itself to make the thing that's threatening them illegal, protecting your flawed business model in law, and making your competitors criminals, for the sole crime of trying to compete against you.