If all the major record labels were to declare bankruptcy tomorrow, I'm not sure it would mean a thing to me. If all the radio stations no longer had their latest and greatest things to use to fill their time, I'd probably consider it an improvement. I haven't listened to the radio in quite some time and the last four big label CDs I've purchased were artists I'd been following since before they were signed.

If all the file-swapping engines were to cease functioning, it would be equally unimportant. The only mp3s I download are off of eMusic and they are bought and paid for. Every now and then I'll get some unreleased song from a band, but I generally get those from friends.

I figure I am probably about as impartial to the file-swapping debate as anyone. I don't really care who wins.

So I am neither the choir nor the unrepentant in one of John LeBlanc's earliest posts on file-swapping (note: no permalinks, so do a search for "ears without faces").

I am pretty much without any sympathy for either side of the debate.

I'm not sure what I can say about the record labels that hasn't been said already. My basic belief towards them is that they largely made this bed. There was a void in the market place that instead of trying to fill it, they wanted to pummell it with concrete.

From a simple business standpoint, the fact that there are precious few ways for MP3s of signed artists to be legally obtained and those that do exist have taken this long to get into place is a prime example of their resistence to change, which dates back to their attempts to ban used music stores and I'm sure before that.

It took them over four years to recognize that MP3s were more than just a method of distributing music, but rather a new medium that many use even if they own the CDs. The first thing I do when I purchase any CD, in fact, is to rip it.

Their paranoia has blinded their vision to the point that they uncomfortably put consumers in the position where it was easier (I mean easier, not cheaper) to obtain each of the songs on the top 40 countdown illegally than properly. They failed - and still fail - to recognize the marketing tool that MP3s could have provided. Marketing tools that, incidentally, would have circumvented by diluging their databases with raw copies of files making it prohibitively difficult for someone to try to track down a good recording. When I did use file-swapping programs, the most difficult files to find were the ones where the artists had released MP3 clips or poor audio releases for public consumption.

They have ignored the tremendous outlet this provides for helping to find new acts. While music video television stations are having listener vote top 20 countdowns, the record companies are scrambling for acts just like the last greatest hit because that's the only thing they know we might like. Instead of simply releasing two or three songs of a new artist for the public to try out, they have resorted to suing their consumers.

If so desired, I could produce a chart that demonstrates my CD purchases that would show a strong linear corrolation between easy file-swapping and how many CDs I buy. I would list all the artists I found via Napster usercatalogs and Audio Galaxy artist pages, but it would be far too long.

Not that it matters, you see, cause I'm the enemy. You see, I was downloading files without permission and so on. I was a thief. If I downloaded ten Matthew Ryan songs and then turned around and bought his three CDs, I'm not a customer who wants to have a clue as to what he's buying, but rather a common cook.

Of course, one might argue that I'm not the problem, but it's those that download without buying. The question is whether or not they would be buying anyway. I'd be willing to bet that if they were around ten years ago, they were the ones copying their friends CDs to tape. That's what I used to do when I didn't have money or a proper connection. That's also where file-swapping is most prevalent: college campuses, high school kids, and among those that don't have money. So how many sales are getting lost here?

But the record companies are losing money. They blame that on file-swapping, but the truth is they were still in the black back in the Napster days, when swapping was considerably easier than it is now. So why are they losing money? The fact that there hasn't really been a new flavor of music since the grunge/alternative/punk outburst a decade ago might have something to do with it. Much easier to blame file-sharing, though.

Now let's talk about the file-swappers. Please understand that I'm not referring to all of you, but a not insignificant portion that is making everyone look bad.

Repeat after me: Music. Is. Not. Free.

It is not free to make, it is not free to produce, it is not free to promote, and it is not free to be put on the airwaves for your enjoyment. This idiotic notion has justified theft for way too long.

You can argue that the artists make their money from their shows, which is largely true, but their shows wouldn't be garnering the attention they get if they hadn't been signed and promoted by a record label. So effectively, you're biting the hand that feeds them. How considerate.

Which brings me to the animosity between swappers and the record companies. I'd like to think that they, like me, disdain the record companies because they tend to promote crap. There is more evidence to the contrary, however, that you actually like their crap.

Can you name me a single artist that rose virally through the ranks of free downloads? Maybe I've been out of the loop long enough that I'm missing a huge act, here, but I certainly can't think of any. The most downloaded artists are the ones that were brought to you via the radio via those evil record execs.

Music is easier to produce and release than ever before. Not that most of you know it because as the airwaves consolidate and the same artists (and their clones) get more and more attention, your downloads mirror the trend. The record companies spend thousands upon thousands of dollars locating, signing, and promoting "quality" talent and when you run across it you simply say "golly gee, I like that song" and proceed to download it.

Perhaps if you like an artist enough, you purchase their CDs. Good. But what about the three or four radio tracks you have downloaded of Hot New Band that are just enough. Well, you wouldn't have bought the CD anyway, right? Except when you download such from fifteen bazillion bands, you have enough music that you really don't need to buy anything, don't you?

I don't care if you don't like the record companies. I don't, either. But don't turn your minor theft into some moral crusade. The fact of the matter is that if you're getting your favorite hits from the radio (note: it still counts if it's "word of mouth" from what your friend heard on the radio), you are utilizing the tremendous filtering service that the record companies provide. All of the bitching and moaning about them in the world does not constitute payment for their services.

Have you ever gone to mp3.com or IUMA? There are tons of good artists there. Of course, there are a lot of crappy ones there, too. Don't feel like waiding through the bad stuff to get to the good? Well, that's what record companies do professionally. You can thank them for their service now. Or at least quit being indignant about leaching off them.

If the record companies ever succeed in making Kazaa unusable, I'm going to laugh as you bitch and moan. I'll miss the occasional unreleased bootleg, but you're going to have to start shelling out $15 for a CD cause you like one song on it all over again while I know where to look for good music. I know of more good music than I could buy in a lifetime.

Lastly, if you're as serious about enjoying the format, rather than just the convenience of not having to pay for anything, check out eMusic, MusicMatch, and other services that allow you to download MP3s for $10 a month. If you're shrieking at the prospect of paying for an MP3, you're proving the record companies' case.

[Coming soon... how we can get out of this jam]