They could have taken them off. (Score 1)

As I understand the MP3.com distribution license, it frees them from the things people do after downloading files, and gives artists the right to remove tracks at will. Furthermore, MP3.com has a feature where a track can be streamed, but not downloaded (not that it doesn't mean someone will have it on their hard drive as a file after streaming it, but at least it's there to keep the little guy straight.) Unless the plaintiffs removed their tracks when they saw the potential of a viral infestation, it's complete crap. $20 says at least one of the tracks listed in the suit is still available for download, so MP3.com can point out that clearly it isn't such a problem if they're still available. I wouldn't sweat it, Michael.