By Shaun Blankenship

You hear it on MTV and even on the radio on your ride to school or anywhere else. The song gets stuck in your head and after school; you sit and watch MTV, hoping the video will appear again soon. About two or three years ago, somebody put an end to this by creating a program to help download music to your computer quickly and easily. The program was named Napster, a peer-to-peer file sharing program allowing you to download and trade MP3 and Windows Media Files. Well, after popularity comes the consequences. The RIAA and angered artists want to shut down this program under the accusation that it "robs" artists of money they should be earning. Why?

The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) was established around 1992 because an upset was created over the availability of new recording equipment that could record music with digital quality. People were worried that this would lead to cheap bootlegs and copies would be sold or copied since these devices were made available to the public. The AHRA made copying tapes and making mixtapes legal as long as the copies and compilations were not sold but distributed through a small group of people in the same facility. If this was so, then shouldn't it protect Napster? But when this law was passed, you couldn't do what you can do now on a computer today. The courts have ruled that Napster is not protected because they do not find computers as capable of digital recordings. Since there are computer programs where you can record music digitally, the ruling's upsurd. If it can't digitally record, what do you call an MP3 file? Shouldn't computers be protected?

It also stated that in the AHRA that admission to use such recordings can't be charged and "users are a household and its' normal circle of friends, rather than the public." Napster is connected to users through many households so the courts say that doesn't apply either. You can't do anything on a computer with more than one person in the connection unless you're on the same computer or have two in a household seperately connected to the Internet. It is a group, the Internet is the household itself. Not everyone who has the Internet has Napster, it's not obligatory to have it with a computer. It is a circle of people, some friends with each others and some who they will never see like a chat room. Shouldn't it be protected?

Many people are concerned about Napster because it allows people to bootleg CD's before their release. Isn't this reminiscent of the AHRA? Rap artist Puff Daddy/P. Diddy says it abuses artists because he found his friend's, the late Notorious B.I.G., album "Born Again" available for downloading more than a week before it's release to the public in stores. What people do not take in consideration is that to make an MP3 file, you first have to have another source, such as a CD or vinyl record. If someone put "Born Again" on Napster, they probably bought it off of someone who had a connection to get the album before release. I personally believe bootlegging is wrong with anything that will eventually be released to the public, some bootlegs are of songs that end up never being released at all (IE: Eminem's song "Quitter" was never released and was bootlegged onto the Internet.). Bootlegging by selling albums is a crime because money is being made and the artist sees no money, unlike Napster where nobody makes money off of the bootlegged songs. It's non-commercial, it does not sell songs, it shares songs.

Napster claims it should be protected by the first amendment of the constitution, but the most that could shield them for is the right to assemble, and shutting them down will be as profitless as it is now. Shutting Napster down will only anger users and convince them to switch to another server or clone. And also in their way of protection, CD sales had gone up since Napster held a "buy-cott", where they encouraged Napster users to go out and buy an album by any artist they have downloaded. I think of Napster as harmless as radio, except no commercials and you are the DJ.

The RIAA says that Napster violates copyright laws by making this music available, but the copyright laws say that it's illegal if somebody profits off of it, that is it's illegal to mass prduce and sell music without permission. If anyone is profiting off of Napster, it's the companies who make blank CD's, CD burners and MP3 portable players. Computers are being sold in the intend of downloading music and burning CD's. Apple iMac computer commercials encourage people to buy Apple computers for the efficiency of doing it.

It's not as if artists are going unappreciated now, and it's not as if Napster is taking "money out of [their] child's mouth" as Art Alexakis of Everclear stated. The public is well aware that it takes a lot of money to record a song: paying $50 to $200 an hour in studio costs, $1,000 or more for mastering, $5,000 to $50,000 in radio promotion and more in related costs (courtesy of www.stopnapster.com). But, hey, Napster sort of is promotion that artists aren't even paying for. It encourages people to buy albums after hearing the tracks on them. You wouldn't want to go out and buy a CD if it only had one good song on it, and if you do and resell it you'll only make about half of what it cost you to buy it.

No only are companies and artists upset, but writers too. Mike Stoller, who wrote with Jerry Leiber the songs "Hound Dog", "Jailhouse Rock", "Love Potion No. 9" and more, stated that he thinks Napster is ripping off royalties that writers should be making for the hard work they put into writing a song. Royalties are paid when an artist makes money off of a song. This really makes me think that these artists just think of Napster as something stealing their songs and making stacks of money from artists' songs before a CD store could. The only people who make money off Napster misuse it and should not be allowed to, like those who burn CD's and sell them as I stated earlier. Artists need to wake up. If Napster makes no profit, there's no harm. If there's no harm, there's no foul; and charging money for Napster is just dumb because then it will just lose popularity and die by itself and make way for Napster clones: programs that do everything Napster can or could.

Shutting down Napster is pointless for it's not illegal to copy music with no profit. The courts should spend more time to trying to crack down bootleggers and people who reap profits of this digital miracle. If it's non-profit, it's illegal. If it's done nothing illegal, why should it be prosecuted?