I am generally inclined to agree with the pro-Napster, anti-RIAA side of the copyright debates. That record companies charge so much for a CD when all you really want is a song or two is ludicrous. The RIAA is also quite apparently guilty of various anti-trust laws.

None of this changes the fact, though, that as the law stands they own the rights to the music that many people download for free. Yes, they're ripping off the artists. Yes, they're ripping off the consumers. However, the artists signed the contract. It's theirs. They can legally do what they want.

More than the law, though, there is an ethical implication to all of this. It is their moral right to charge what they want and disseminate their works as they so desire. It is our moral wrong to subvert that buy downloading and burning CD's that we would otherwise buy. Most claim not to do this -- and many don't -- but many do. They know they do.

I'm a writer who hopes to some day write books. When I do have them written, I would like as many people to read my books as possible. So I might freely distribute my book on the web. At the same time, I'd also like to make a living writing. So I may shop the books around to publishers. Truth be told, more people will read it if it's published, publicized, and sold than if it is given away. That's a bargain I may be willing to make.

So then let's take the Napster of the novel world, if there was one. If I had a book published and someone "ripped" it and put it online, people who otherwise might buy the book might now download it and print it out for free. My publisher loses money. They don't sign me to another book deal. I've therefore lost the aforementioned right to choose how I want to publish my works. If it means more people read my writing, then that's good. If it means that I won't be able to write as much because I have to work longer hours, that's bad.

On the third hand, the point of (most) art is for it to be read, watched, or listened to. Anyone who would rather 10 people buy and pay for their works than 1,000,000 view/listen/read them with only 5 actually paying for it isn't an artist, and popular culture can easily do without them. In fact, the fame and "fortune" of the record company breeds a kind of artist-hack that we can all do without. One of the reasons I like local artists over national ones is that I know they all want to be playing. If they were out simply for a record deal, they would be in California, New York, or Nashville.

However (am I on the fourth hand now?), even non-hack-artists need to eat. If they don't have to spend their days working at IBM, the consumers win because they can write and perform more. Recently I have read many proposed ways that record companies could capitalize on the Internet, get increased listenership AND make money.

In the end, that's what it's going to come down to. We have to spend money. We have to be willing to spend money. We need to let go of the idea that art should inherently be free and anyone who charges for it is some sort of criminal. Even if (in the case of the RIAA) we really don't like who is charging us for it.

The record companies say that we are downloading music for free because we want something for nothing and that the only way to stop us is to deny us the technology to do it.

We respond that we would pay for CD's if they weren't so lousy (2 good songs on a CD with 10 mediocre ones) and overpriced.

If we REALLY want the record companies to change their ways, we have to prove that we are willing to pay for music. If we continue to indignantly download their music without paying for any of it, we're simply proving their point. Of course, if we pay the record labels then we're encouraging them (they were trying to shut down Napster long before record sales slummed). We need to find a way to pay for the works, pay the artists, and not reward the record companies. Anyone have any ideas?

Over and over again I hear that the record companies just need to be more creative in the way they market their product.

Maybe we need to try to be creative in the way we buy it.