It is three o'clock in the morning, a week after the ruling that could kill Napster, the online song-swapping service, and Anonymous Coward, one of the most prolific chatters on Napster's website, is both extolling its virtues and wondering whether there are any alternatives.

Urging his fellow users to boycott the record labels behind the legal battle, Anonymous asks what is the point of closing down Napster given that people will simply start up something similar. As if to prove his point, he then asks if anyone has used Freenet, the Napster alternative.

A week after the US court of appeals ruling against Napster, and most of its users are still none the wiser about what they can and cannot do. This is partly because of the complexities of the legal case and partly because of the fledgling nature of the technology.

Last week's ruling by the ninth court of appeals, should have been as clear as the white paper it was written on. The court upheld a ruling delivered last July by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel that Napster was guilty of copyright infringement. By allowing more than 50m users - Napster itself says 61m - to share each other's music, the court found that Napster was aiding illegal behaviour. The judgment agreed that it was vital to act swiftly because of the irreparable harm that was being done to the recording industry.

But more than a week after this decision was taken, Napster is still up and running. What is more, it looks set to continue operations for at least the next few weeks while Judge Patel redefines her initial judgment.

In the meantime, the judge has appointed a mediator to negotiate a settlement between the two sides. The appointment of former federal judge Eugene Lynch has raised hopes that some form of Napster can survive without breaking copyright laws.

Analysts are less clear about whether this can happen, however. Bruce Kasrel at Forrester Research says, "They can put all sorts of restrictions in place so that Napster polices its site, but that wouldn't be Napster any more."

Kasrel is among several analysts who believe that for Napster to work as a business, and not just a cult, it needs the support of the majority of record labels rather than just one. After last year's court ruling, Napster agreed to work with Bertelsman, one of the major record labels, on a new, legal system. While few of the details of this partnership have been announced, most analysts expect them to unveil a subscription-based service later this year.

Part of the beauty of Napster is its universality. Nsync fans can download the music of the Backstreet Boys, for example, despite the fact that both are owned by different labels. With only one label involved, the desire to pay a fee for a service, provided upto now for free, would be even more diminished.

So far, however, the recording industry as a whole has shown little desire to follow Bertelsman's lead. More attention has been paid to developing new technology to make it easier to spot pirates.

Napster executives have said little about the future apart from a promise to "pursue every avenue" in the legal process.

While this corporate manoeuvring is set to intensify, Napster's users are flexing their new-found muscle. As well as calling for boycotts of the companies concerned, Anonymous Coward, Beergut et al are urging their fellow fans to write to members of the US congress about the abuses of the music industry.

There are also the alternatives to Napster such as Freenet, Bearshare and Todenode, to name just a few, which could prove just as popular if their founders find a way to improve and simplify them. Some are already threatening to continue their illegal behaviour. As Metallica has found to its cost, it can patrol the number of times its songs are downloaded but how about that little-known band Mtllica or Metlca.

"There will be illegal copying and there is nothing they can do about some of the more nefarious things," says Kasrel.