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

What actions does Napster take to promote piracy? They index files on the computer of a user. Google does roughly the same thing, would you accuse them of facilitating piracy?

>
> 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.

Uhhh... so then there is nothing on Napster (or rather on its user's computers) that's in the public domain? Or that has been given the blessing of copyright holders? I know people who use Napster to get music of indy bands that think Napster is okay. One of my friends has actually told me that some of his most heavily downloaded stuff is this type of music.

Copyrighted music is the most predominant thing being shared on Napster, no doubt about it. But IT IS NOT THE ONLY USE FOR NAPSTER. There are plenty of legitimate uses.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on your belief that the only function of Napster is to illegaly trade music. Please provide some evidence to support this; I believe it to be in blatant contrast to the facts.

>
> 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.

This seems to miss my argument completely. I am not saying that it should be legal to trade copyrighted files without permission. I am simply saying that Napster provides little more than a common protocol and an index, and as such can not be rationally held responsible for what people choose to do with this information.

Stephen