> No. The logical fallacy you are using here is called "Sweeping Generalization".
>
> Napster is a service that was created specifically to facitiate the dissemination of copyrighted materials illegally.

This does not necessarily make it illegal. It is legal to own a set of lock-picks, despite the fact that their most obvious use is to aid in some sort of criminal activities (though of course I could use them on my own locks). If I use them to commit a crime, then I am in trouble. However, nobody would ever accuse the people that made the lock-picks of "facilitating breaking and entering."

A question: what if the primary purpose of AOL Instant Messenger or something became piracy of copyrighted material? If 99% of the users on AIM were doing illegal things, should we hold AOL responsible?

In other words, is Napster only illegal because you believe the original intent of the creators was to aid in piracy?

What if Napster decided to change the intent of its program? What if they started actively promoting only works that were in the public domain? Would they still be held responsible for the actions of their users?

Stephen