On Friday, Penn State President Graham Spanier announced that Penn State will launch an agreement with the file-sharing program Napster. The plan will allow students to download music from the program starting in the spring semester for on-campus students.

By making the deal with Napster, Spanier and Penn State are responding to students' desire to have a legal file-sharing option on campus. But why this specific option was chosen, and why the choice was made so abruptly, raises several questions.

It is unclear why the university chose to make a deal with Napster when its services are so limited. Students with Mac computers and those who do not have Windows XP or 2000 cannot use Napster. The song choice available on Napster will also be limited. Further, songs obtained from Napster cannot be permanently downloaded to students' computers and cannot be burned onto a CD, unless a 99 cent fee is paid.

Services like this already exist. Many Web sites, including many bands' official sites, offer songs that can be temporarily downloaded. And paid services to download songs that can be burned onto a CD also already exist.

What then is Penn State really offering? If Penn State is not offering anything more than what already exists, why is the university getting involved at all? If students still have to pay to be able to download songs permanently or to be able to burn files onto a CD, why not let students decide for themselves whether to pay the fee?

The reason the university started exploring on-campus file-sharing options was to protect students from legal action. But because of the limitations of the Napster program, several students will most likely continue to illegally download music from Web sites like Kazaa. The university should consider whether tt even the job of Penn State to protect its students.

There is also the question of university funding. The Napster program is being paid for through the information technology fee, a $160 charge Penn State students pay each year. Penn State has adamantly maintained that the Napster deal will not increase the cost of this fee. There seems to be two ways to explain this. One possible explanation is that other services previously provided by the technology fee will be compromised in some way. A second option is that in the past, students were being overcharged for the fee. Both possibilities are troubling. And even if neither is the case, the university should better explain the funding of this new program.

Spanier and the university were looking for an innovative solution to the file-sharing dilemma. Making a deal with the limited Napster service does not seem to be that solution.

The university is working closely with Napster to improve the program. It is understandable that it will take some time to perfect the system. But the university should be aware that this new program is just a first step. If Penn State is truly going to lead the way in university file sharing, it needs to realize it has to go beyond this first step and create a program that will actually protect students.