A San Francisco court has rejected a move to bring the long-running Napster case to a rapid end. Judge Marilyn Patel decided there was not yet enough evidence to support the music industry’s argument that Napster’s service represented wholesale copyright infringement.

Napster has thus won a stay of execution from a potential multi-million dollar bill for unpaid royalties.

Judge Patel voiced criticism towards some of the parties bringing the case against Napster. She stated that some of the record companies involved in the lawsuit may attempt to abuse their positions of dominance with music download services of their own. She pointed out that one such service, MusicNet did itself exhibit hallmarks of anti-competitive business practices. The enterprise “looks bad, sounds bad and smells bad,” she said.

Napster’s lawyers speculate that the fact that the major labels are working together to form MusicNet and Pressplay may allow them to set price controls to limit the marketplace. This would mean that Napster would have little option but to sign deals with them when it re-launches as a legitimate service.

Napster hopes that this argument may help it to escape prosecution altogether. However, the music industry has slated such arguments as amounting to no more than attempt to stall for time.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.