The Difference (Score 1)

There's a subtle difference between these two cases. Napster is technically (according to the laws of the US) NOT stealing copyright material. This is because they do not actually rip the stolen music, but only provide a means for users to share their music with each other. As Newsweek put it, they are taking the piano player's argument in the brothel: "Hey, WE don't know what's going on upstairs." However, everyone who runs/uses napster knows that its sole purpose is to provide people with an efficient means to steal music. Offspring, in this case, is legally in the wrong. Selling merchandise with a trademarked or copyrighted logo/name without written consent of the holder of the trademark is illegal. The public, however, sees the parallel, and realizes that Napster is more or less stealing music. Which is why the Offspring did that. Although I don't see why anyone would want to really stop Napster (unless they are a musician.) It provides you with free music that you can get at a moment's notice, unlike the old system of searching fileservers, ftp's, and web sites that would be taken down by the FBI. And I don't feel sorry for Metallica, who already has millions upon millions of dollars. I don't think they really need much more silver lining in their pockets at 15$ a CD. So Napster most likely will finally have to buckle under the lawsuits and provide only indie music, which will do the RIAA no good, because everyone will immediatly switch to GnuTella.