> > Napster is a service that was created specifically to facitiate the dissemination of copyrighted materials illegally.
>
> This does not necessarily make it illegal.

[snip lockpick example]

> 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?

No.

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

Yes.

The government can seize the assets of and shut down a corporation that is used to transport drugs. The corporation only exists to do an illegal act.

> Would they still be held responsible for the actions of their users?

I'm not saying it's the actions of their users, I'm saying it's the actions of Napster.

Napster exists only to facilitate copyrighted materials illegally. That's not its 'most obvious' use, that is its use. It doesn't matter what the users do with the program. It's not like a gun, which could be used to kill people but can also be used for hunting. It's not a set of lockpicks, which could be used to break into other people's houses but could also be used by locksmiths or to unlock your own property. It exists solely to trade music files without paying royalties to the copyright holder.

How could Napster work legally? The thing that pop into my mind is to change the existing copyright laws regarding home taping. MP3 files don't degrade from copy to copy. It's a format that wasn't even considered when the copyright laws were changed in the 70's to allow home taping.

MP3s aren't CD quality. They are close, yes, but not exact. Change the law to allow trading music files that aren't CD quality (or whatever quality the copyright holder publishes the work) and then fine, go ahead and trade.

> Stephen

-Faux Pas