Copyright is the right to restrict duplication of a work. I'm stunned that everyone thus far hasn't seen a problem with freely distributing an artist work.
Oh sure, pull out a strawman at the 11th hour. I love when people get on their "protect the artists" high horse.

First of all, copyright is not a right; it is a privilege granted for a limited time and with a specific purpose in mind. There is substantial argument that the purpose of copyright is not being satisfied by its current obesity and that it should be reformed.

However, that is not an argument in this debate. This debate is about fair use and a utility that had substantial non-infringing use.

Napster is like taping a song off the radio. Napster is like someone else ripping your legally obtained CDs for you so you don't have to go to the trouble of dealing with buggy software, crappy CD readers, and copy protection.

If you can show me what is demonstrably wrong with consumers sampling works before paying for them, when the sample comes at no cost to anyone, you'll win.