Heavy metal band Metallica has always been synonymous with music that is played fast and loud. After filing a lawsuit Thursday, the band might become more famous as the first group to strike a chord against music piracy on the Net.

Metallica filed a lawsuit against Napster in the US District Court, Central District of California, alleging that the company encourages piracy by enabling and allowing its users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers.

The suit also names the University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University, institutions which, ironically, have attempted to deal with the problems associated with students’ use of Napster on campus networks.

The RIAA has sent cease-and-desist letters to school administrators advising them of the copyright violations involved, but until now none of the universities have been sued.

The suit alleges that Napster has violated three different areas of the law: copyright infringements, unlawful use of digital audio interface device, and the Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Napster had not received the lawsuit as of 6:00 p.m. EDT, according to its acting CEO, Eileen Richardson.

"We regret that the band's management saw fit to issue a press release – and to file a lawsuit – without even attempting to contact Napster.... Many bands who have approached us, learned about Napster and how to leverage what we offer, understand the value of what we do."

Napster's counsel, Laurence Pulgram, at Fenwick & West, LLP in San Francisco, stated:

"This action raises the same copyright issues as the lawsuit filed against Napster by the recording industry in federal court in San Francisco. The complaint reads like it was written to inflame the press and intimidate universities rather than to present legal issues to the court. It is also hard to understand why plaintiffs – a group located in the San Francisco Bay Area – saw it necessary to file a separate action in Los Angeles."

The RIAA filed a lawsuit against Napster in November, and Judge Marilyn Patel of the Northern California Federal District Court is expected to resume that case in the next few weeks.

The case against Napster raises questions about whether a software manufacturer is liable for the ways in which their product is used. Largely, the cases will depend on how the courts interpret the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA).

Metallica’s management company, New York-based Q Prime, issued a statement that said, "Facilitating that effort are the hypocritical universities and colleges who could easily block this insidious and ongoing thievery scheme."

Metallica is no stranger to referring to legal issues in its work – the band's album "And Justice For All" was nominated for a Grammy in 1995.

"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives," said Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich in the press release.

"We take our craft – whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork – very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy – a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information – whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever - is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."

Most of the computer software and hardware that pertains to digital music is not covered by the AHRA, because it is not used exclusively for copying music. So CD burners, MP3 encoders, and computer hard drives do not have to include a chip to prevent recordings from being re-copied, which is the case with Minidisc and DAT decks. And in the RIAA versus Diamond case last year, the court ruled that portable MP3 players are exempt from the AHRA as well.

Robert Schwartz, a lawyer who helped draft the AHRA and works at McDermott, Will & Emery in Washington, D.C., said in a recent interview that when you look at the legalities of copying music in digital formats, you have to consider several variables.

"You have to look at whether the source is the type of source that triggers the [AHRA] Act. You have to look at whether the interface has any obligation. And then you have to look at how the recorder works, and how it all works together. And if the recorder has to apply the rules, what the outcome should be."

At a streaming media conference in New York last week, Jonathan Taplin, a former tour manager for Bob Dylan and the Band, predicted that it was only a matter of time before individual artists struck back against Napster.

"One of the things that's gonna happen very soon is that it's not going to be the RIAA suing Napster or Gnutella, it's going to be the artists themselves," he said. "And when Ray Charles or Aretha Franklin sues, then maybe we'll have a real debate on whether this is a right use of digital technology. Just because you can create a Napster does not mean that you should."