Thanks, Fred, I didn’t know precisely how it happened – I know it wasn’t in the appeals court’s decision or the district court’s initial order. My interpretation was premised on Patel’s demanding that Napster “get down to zero” (see: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/napster/transcript071101.pdf) and the appeals court basically following that lead. Once Napster had installed the filtering tools, it seems the court was willing to force them to make additional modifications.

For the record, the court in the Napster case did NOT order Napster to implement filtering technology or otherwise modify its software. Napster voluntarily offered to do that in an effort to molify the plaintiffs (with whom it was trying to settle the case). In hindsight, I think most would agree that this was a mistake by Napster, but you know what they say about hindsight.