The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday, saying Internet file-sharing companies can be sued for encouraging illegal downloading, was good news for the entertainment business and bad for the file-sharing companies.

		Previous Story Supreme Court ruling will curtail free access to movies, music

That does not mean it was bad for the rest of the world, especially those who use their computers to download music, movies, games and other files. While the smoke is still clearing from the court's decision, file-sharing is here to stay.

A look at some of the questions prompted by the court decision, and its impact on entertainment fans and consumers, follows.

Q: Can I still download music?

A: Yes, at plenty of Web sites, some requiring payments and some free.

Pay sites that have licensing agreements with the entertainment industry -- such as iTunes, Rhapsody, Yahoo Music and others -- are panting for your business. Rhapsody took out a full page ad in national newspapers yesterday welcoming the court's decision.

Sites battling the industry such as Grokster and Morpheus -- which were targeted in Monday's decision -- face a cloudier future. While the Supreme Court sent their case back to a federal appeals court for trial, they are almost sure to lose. They and other file-sharing services that allow for sharing of copyrighted files -- and make money off it, through advertising and other means -- may fold or have to change their sites drastically.

Less mainstream file-sharing sites that do not take "affirmative steps" to encourage illegal file sharing (as the court ruled Grokster and Morpheus did), such as BitTorrent or Soulseek, will probably be unscathed by the decision. It may even provide them a road map to avoid legal hassles.

Q: Are Grokster and Morpheus still running?

A: Morpheus' parent, StreamCast Networks, is boldly saying it will keep fighting its "David vs. Goliath" battle in court, despite Justice David Souter's disapproving assessment of the company's practices. Grokster officials could not be reached to comment on their plans. Officials from another service, Kazaa, also claimed they never helped users illegally download material and welcomed a day in court.

Q: I would rather not pay for music and other files, but without a Ph.D. in computer science I can't figure out sites like BitTorrent. What can I do?

A: First, seek absolution for your sins: Unless the artist, record company, movie studio or other copyright holder granted permission for the file to be shared, you are stealing. Second, look for the many sites that will simply move off-shore -- outside the reach of U.S. copyright law -- to satisfy your illegal downloading fix.

"Something called 'Stealzer' will probably spring up in Malaysia tomorrow," joked David Card, a senior analyst at Jupiter Research in New York.

You may pay for your sins anyway: Many of these sites make money by placing spyware into your computer, infecting it without your knowledge.

Q: Can I get in trouble for those pirated music tracks that I downloaded before the court's ruling?

A: The Recording Industry Association of America has very publicly sued people for illegal downloading -- including students at Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh this spring -- but your chances of getting busted are relatively small. That said, though, you have been warned: Legal haggling and threats over downloading are not going away.

Q: Technology advocates also warn that my iPod, which I use to play back some of those pirated songs, may be in trouble, too. Is that true?

A: Probably not. Apple plays ball with the entertainment industry -- its iTunes software, with 99 cent songs, is a huge hit -- and will likely be safe. The question is if development of future technologies -- whatever makes your iPod unnecessary someday, the same way the iPod relegated your portable CD player to a desk drawer -- will be dampened by the court's decision.

Q: Why would that happen?

A: File-sharing advocates say researchers will shy away from developing new technologies for fear that others could use it illegally (as Grokster users did with its software), opening the researchers to lawsuits. Still, the court seemed concerned with giving an appropriate "safe harbor" to technological development -- as long as developers do not "induce" illegal behavior and their technology has substantial legitimate uses.

Q: What happens next?

A: The case goes back to a federal appeals court, in a light very favorable to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios and the other industry titans that challenged the file-sharing services.

Beyond the fate of Grokster and related services, computer activists -- joined by consumer advocates and some small-business groups -- say the court's decision was too vague and will allow a tornado of lawsuits against small technology businesses. Congress could head off litigation by rewriting copyright laws -- but that would be politically touchy -- by pitting competing business interests, and campaign contributors, against each other.