What do Elton John, Lou Reed and Metallica have in common? The answer is that they are all fighting in a campaign that has brought together more artists than Live Aid - the legal battle against online music piracy.
Court cases brought against MP3.com and Napster, two online music companies, are set to reawaken the debate over copyright and online music in the US, where internet downloading of recorded music has soared in recent years.
Any day now, a judge in California will rule on a case brought against Napster, a popular song-swap service, by the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade body for the world's largest record labels.
The ruling follows last week's judgment in a separate case that MP3.com was liable for copyright infringement. At issue was My.MP3.com, a service launched in January which allows users to access tracks from the company's database of 80,000 albums provided they already own a copy of the CD. The recording association successfully argued that the creation of the database alone violated copyright law.
Analysts believe that MP3 has been trying to reach a settlement with the association before the judge publishes his detailed ruling. Neither the company nor the association would comment on reports yesterday that they had failed to agree a proposed $100m (£64m) settlement.
The recording association is believed to be unlikely to accept such a payment, especially if tied to an agreement on future licensing fees. Under the lawsuit, it asked for up to $6bn in damages from MP3.com, almost half of the more than $14bn-worth of recordings sold in the United States last year.
Lise Buyer, internet analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston, believes that San Diego-based MP3.com is trying to reach a settlement with the labels. In a note to investors this week, she wrote that it was in the interests of the recording industry to "work out a solution as the MP3 genie cannot be put back into the bottle". The interests for MP3.com include avoiding potential damages that "range from inconsequential to fatal".
Following the ruling, Michael Robertson, chief executive of MP3.com, said: "This is not a victory for the record labels - it's a loss. New technologies for delivering music are here to stay and the technology trend is moving in only one direction - forward." Rather than harming the industry, he argues that the service provided by MP3.com - which does not own the compression technology behind MP3 - helped music sales increase 8% in the first quarter of this year compared with 1999. He said the decision to attack MP3.com was misguided and would lead to copyright chaos because the company insisted on users at least buying a CD "as opposed to other services like Napster".
Silicon Valley-based Napster allows users to download music from the hard drives of other people using its technology. Its failure to insist that any music is bought first has prompted attacks on many fronts, including from groups like Metallica that own the rights to their recordings. Napster, which declined to comment before the judgment, is claiming immunity under the digital millennium copyright act, a largely untested American law that allows internet service providers to escape penalties for copyright abuse.
International artists have supported the legal action. On the association's website, Elton John wrote: "I am excited about the opportunities presented by the internet. But the bottom line must always be respect and compensation for creative work."
Lou Reed said: "Artists, like anyone else, should be paid for their work."
A few musicians have supported Napster and other internet companies, such as Myplay.com, believe that internet companies and recording labels should work together to take advantage of the explosion in online music.
Forrester Research estimates that 25% of all music revenue in 2004 will be generated from internet downloads, up from a fraction today. Even after last week's decision, the jury is still out on who will benefit from such a change.
