Harvard's lawyers are preparing a legal analysis of whether to ban Napster from Harvard's network and have contacted computer administrators to discuss the feasibility of such a ban.

The University has not yet responded to the September 7 request by an attorney representing the artists Dr. Dre and Metallica that Harvard block the popular music-sharing service.

If the University denied that request, it would be the first school contacted by recording artists to do so.

Last spring, when Howard E. King, the artists' attorney, added Yale University, Indiana University and the University of Southern California as defendants in their lawsuit against Napster, all three schools promptly blocked access to the service on their networks. They were subsequently dropped from the suit, which alleges that Napster facilitates copyright infringement.

The attorney representing the musicians requested a reply from Harvard by Friday, but University lawyer Allan A. Ryan said the deadline was not set in stone.

Frank M. Steen, the director of Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services (HASCS), said he has discussed the prospect of banning Napster with the general counsel's office. If the University decides to block the service, Steen said it could be shut down "very fast"--perhaps within 24 hours.

Steen would not discuss the technical details of blocking access to Napster because of security concerns, but said the University would have to decide how extensive a block to institute.

"We could effectively block Napster," Steen said, "but we might block other legitimate [network] uses as well."

Computer administrators at other schools said it would be difficult to completely block access to Napster.

Steven S. Wallace, the chief network architect for Indiana University, said most efforts to block Napster would not work if students connected to "mirror" servers other than the central Napster server.

"We have most of the less sophisticated Napster users blocked at Indiana University, but there are probably those who are savvy enough to find a way around the filters we put in place," he said.

King said the letter he sent to Harvard and seven other universities shies away from confrontational language because the last letter secured swift cooperation from its recipients.

"In our letter we don't say do this or you're being sued," King said.

But Harvard attorney Ryan said the letter's intended meaning was plain.

"Clearly, the implication would be that they are prepared to sue other schools," he said.

Ryan says that fear of a lawsuit will not force the University's hand on Napster.

"The University seldom, if ever, makes decisions on the basis of whether it will or will not be sued," he said.

Any lawsuit against Harvard by recording artists would be grounded in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The law relieves Internet service providers such as Harvard from any obligation to monitor their users for illegal actions. But once Harvard is notified that its users are breaking the law, it must take down any infringing material.

"A university has no obligation to do anything until they become aware of a copyright violation on their system," King said. "Once they become aware, they have some obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent it."

The decision that Harvard's attorneys must make is complicated by the fact that the larger national battle over Napster's legality has not been decided.

Although U.S. District Judge Marylin H. Patel issued a preliminary injunction on July 27 that would have effectively shut the service down, the injunction was swiftly overturned without comment by the ninth circuit court of appeals.

However, Ryan said the lack of a final court decision won't prevent Harvard from making its own decision about the program's legality.

"It is accurate to say there has been no final judgement [from the courts]," he said. "At the same time, we make judgements about things all the time without the benefit of a final court judgement."