TWO important legal rulings have been made recently concerning on-line access to free music.

The first led to music-swapping internet site Napster losing its court battle to stay active in its current format.

The second saw the European parliament outlawing sites like Napster, but still allowing 'private' copies of copyrighted material to be made.

Set up by 19-year-old Shaun Fanning, Napster is basically a downloadable piece of software that lets the user access a vast on-line database which details all the MP3s (downloadable music files) on the hard drives of other Napster users. The user types in the name of a song or band, Napster returns all the different versions and copies of songs available, and the user chooses which files to download.

No music is actually stored at napster.com - all Napster does is facilitate music sharing between its users.

Of course, the music industry does not look so kindly on this attitude. The so-called Big Five - BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner, who control around 90 per centof the world's music - brought the action against Napster, which culminated in the ruling.

In brief, the 58-page ruling states that Napster is accountable if it assists in the swapping of music it knows to be copyrighted - around 98 per cent of all the music files it has in its database.

In a parallel case, the European Parliament ruled on a controversial bill that could have seen all home-copying becoming illegal, actors receiving 'minimal' royalties for archive material shown on-line or via digital TV, and vast levies being placed on blank cassettes.

The European Parliament ignored much of the lobbying done by the music industry and opted to maintain the status quo. Actors will still be paid their royalties, tapes will remain cheap, and home recording will still be legal.

There were, however, no shock rulings on sites like Napster. Acceding to the music industry's demands MEPs approved a clause in the Bill that will allow any such sites to be shut down if necessary.

One fact that irks me is that, whilst vowing to fight on, Napster is in talks with BMG's parent company Bertelsmann to create a subscription-based service. Napster has provided a lethargic and basically, gluttonous industry with a swift kick up the proverbial. However, such a deal would, in my opinion, be dining with the devil.

The Napster issue hinges on the fight against corporatism controlling intellectual property, like the US companies looking to profit from the mapping of the human genome.

What Napster did was point out that music companies were expendable. Peer-to-peer file swapping cuts out the middleman. In this digital age anybody can create music and put it on-line. Testament to this new entrepreneurial spirit is Mercury Music Prize nominee Kathryn Williams, whose album was recorded, published and publicised by herself, from her bedroom. No wonder the Big Five are up in arms about Napster - it could signal their demise.

But then again, there will always be a need for facilitators, be it enabling artists to get studio time to ensuring that consumers know that these artists are out there.

All Napster has really done is remind the music industry it needs to move with the times.