Produced by and

(CNN) -- Intellectual property attorney Kevin Grierson joined Law Chat on Wednesday, October 4, to discuss the lawsuit the Recording Industry Associates of American brought against the online music sharing service Napster. Grierson practices in the areas of Internet and e-commerce law in the Norfolk, Virginia, office of Willcox & Savage. He is also a registered patent attorney. Law Chat is presented by FindLaw. The following is an edited transcript of the chat:

CNN Host: What is happening in the Napster trial?

Kevin Grierson: Arguments were just held before the Ninth Circuit on whether Napster should be enjoined before the trial of the infringement case.

Question from Karaoke: If the PC is deemed a recording device, what will that do to the recording industry?

Kevin Grierson: I think it's unlikely to be deemed a recording device. If it were, however, the recording industry would be entitled to royalties under the Audio Home Recording Act, so your PC would get more expensive, and the industry would get more money.

CNN Host: Are there any precedents for this case?

Kevin Grierson: The main precedent is the Sony case the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1984. The court held that as long as there are "substantial, non-infringing uses" for a device, it can't be banned even if it can be used to infringe copyrights.

Question from CharliGirl: How can Napster be held responsible for copyright infringement when they aren't the ones who copy the songs? They only offer people a way to trade already copied material.

Kevin Grierson: Two of the ways that someone who is not infringing can be held liable are by contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. Both center on the idea that the party authorizes or aids someone else to infringe.

CNN Host: What consequences may Napster spinoff companies such as Gnutella face?

Kevin Grierson: Gnutella will be harder to trace, because there is no central database of users, but the individual users could still be targets of actions as long as they can be traced.

Question from how: What will the law's role be for the future of the Internet and the recording industry?

Kevin Grierson: The answer to that question could fill a book, and would be a shot in the dark. The law will have to figure out how to protect intellectual property rights while not putting a stranglehold on the technology--because if it can't, the law will cease to work at all: the technology is here to stay.

CNN Host: How long might the trial last?

Kevin Grierson: The trial could take anywhere from a couple of weeks to several months. Before we get to the trial, the Ninth Circuit might order more hearings on whether to enjoin Napster.

Question from CharliGirl: What are Napsters chances of winning their case?

Kevin Grierson: Right now, it's a crapshoot. Some of the language in the Sony case clearly supports their position, but the judge in the district court has made some preliminary findings of fact about the intent of Napster's founders that could be very damaging to their chances of success.

CNN Host: Have there been any surprises in the hearing so far? Kevin Grierson: Only that the recording industry's reliance on the Fonovisa case--which involved a bazaar for illegally swapping copyrighted materials--was shot down by the judge who wrote that opinion, who said that Napster had less control over what went on on its site.

CNN Host: What impact can a case like this have on intellectual property law?

Kevin Grierson: Clearly, copyright law is going to take a beating if this kind of unregulated copying is allowed to persist without some way to monitor it or allow the artists to derive some revenue. I think that Congress will come forward with some sort of proposed solution regarding an individual making copies for himself, but I don't know if that will help with the swapping issue.

CNN Host: What will happen to Napster and Napster's creator if he loses the case?

Kevin Grierson: Napster will probably be out of business if it loses, although MP3 has managed to work some deals with its adversaries to stay afloat. Napster's founders may wind up in bankruptcy, but there's no real bar to a new business venture if this one goes under. CNN Host: What are the common misconceptions about this trial held by the public?

Kevin Grierson: I'm not sure about the trial in particular, but there seems to be a general feeling that copying information off the Internet is somehow not copyright infringement, which is just plain wrong. Many people seem to think that "fair use" would encompass what's going on with Napster, but when you make your music collection available to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people to copy at their leisure, it's very hard to argue fair use.

CNN Host: Many businesses are looking for a legitimate business plan based on the Napster model. Do you think this is possible? Kevin Grierson: Yes. Napster itself has proposed a model by which it charges for access to its site, with royalties going to the record companies, and the record companies are experimenting with similar systems.

CNN Host: If Napster loses, what appeal options are avaiable and where would the case go after this?

Kevin Grierson: If you are talking about the trial itself, an appeal would go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then on to the Supreme Court. Depending on the ruling on the injunction, Napster or the music industry could conceivably appeal the injunction decision to the Supreme Court, but it's not likely that the court would accept the appeal.

CNN Host: Can you detail who Napster's opposition is? Who is involved in the lawsuit?

Kevin Grierson: Napster's opposition is mostly a group of the major recording labels, such as A&M and BMG, along with the RIAA, which is, I believe, the Recording Industry Artists Association, which is run by Jack Valenti.

Question from has: Has Napster been shut down? People have been having trouble logging in. Question from is: When is napster going down?

Kevin Grierson: Napster has not been shut down, at least not by the court. There are reports that traffic on the site is very high in anticipation that it will be shut down shortly. I don't know if it will be shut down before the trial; the Ninth Circuit could rule on the injunction any day.

Question from Shandy: Would this case be different if the program was based on open-source code as opposed to a business based in revenue creation?

Kevin Grierson: No, because the damage the recording industry fears would be the same. You don't need to make a profit to be considered a copyright infringer.

Question from does: You know, I'm just a user, but why is it not obvious that this (using Napster) has only caused me to go out and buy CD's? I am also an artist. The big Music Industry types are only trying to further their control of a business that should be open to all. Talk about monopoly.

Kevin Grierson: There has been evidence presented before the district court that music sales on or near campuses where Napster use is greatest have actually dropped. Furthermore, many respondents to a recent poll on FindLaw indicated that they wouldn't pay even a dollar or two a song if they could get the same song for free on Napster. So I don't know that it's obvious that Napster is stimulating record sales.

Question from BADGER: What's the difference between giving someone a book to read off my bookshelf and giving someone a MP3 file? Kevin Grierson: The difference is that if you give someone the book, you can't read it while they have it. With MP3s, you and several hundred thousand of your closest friends can share files and still listen to them.

Question from Shandy: Is the damage from Napster damage that can be recouped? Even if Napster is shut down, the actual program concept is not difficult and could be recreated. Does the DeCSS case have any relevance to this case?

Kevin Grierson: Very good point. I think that the genie is out of the bottle, and if users can't access Napster, they can use decentralized systems for accessing the same music. Shutting down Napster is not going to shut down this phenomenon. The DeCSS case is similar in that the court found that the decryption program was primarily used for the purpose of infringement of DVDs. If the court follows that reasoning, Napster loses.

Question from big red: What percentage of artists are actually apposed to Napster?

Kevin Grierson: I honestly don't know, but some very prominent names (such as Metallica and U2) have come out against Napster, even though Metallica allows bootlegs of its concerts.

Question from Grateful: What about live material that is not commercially available -- by bands that endorse live recordings? What is wrong with this?

Kevin Grierson: The band's concern (and this has happened to Metallica) is that it may not represent what they want to present as their work. Some bands don't object to trading bootleg MP3's of their concerts (Metallica doesn't). It really comes down to allowing the artist to control what happens to his/her materials.

CNN Host: Do you have any final thoughts to share with us today?

Kevin Grierson: Whatever happens with Napster, the courts (and Congress) are going to have to come to grips with the way that information can be transmitted today. If we can't find some reasonable way to allow file sharing and at the same time allow reasonable compensation to artists for their work, copyright law is going to be in a lot of trouble in terms of its enforceability.