hrough "contributory and vicarious copyright infringement," the RIAA (RIAA represents the major U.S. record labels) said..." * However, Napster does have a disclaimer on its website which states that: "...copying or distributing unauthorized MP3 files may violate U.S. and foreign copyright, adding that compliance with the law is the responsibility of the end-user." * Should Napster still be held accountable? After all, isn't that pretty much the same thing as the disclaimer that runs at the beginning of VHS tapes warning users not to make illegal copies...etc? Apparently not, because in early May of 2000: "The motion for summary judgment Napster had filed as part of it's defense of a lawsuit brought against the startup by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel in San Francisco... Patel rejected Napster's motion for summary judgment, in which the company claimed it only acted as a "conduit" for information. Patel's decision means the lawsuit will go to trial... " ** The reason that Napster selected this claim as it's strategy was that had the court agreed with it, Napster would have been granted protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. *** "Napster since then has focused on its two strongest remaining defenses. The first, known as the "pencil defense," requires that Napster show it is a tool that has many noninfringing uses, like a pencil or a VCR. To that end, Napster has negotiated deals with independent record labels to build a case that the system is used within the recording industry to promote music... The secon
             ...