Free music is great, let Napster die gracefully
The idea was revolutionary in its simplicity. Free music? Where do I sign up?
But from the time Lars Ulrich turned in hundreds of thousands of his fans who
had helped themselves to his music through the controversial file-sharing program
Napster, the debate over the merits of free music, artist’s rights and art
vs. commerce have raged and divided fans and musicians the world over.
The debate is an important one, one which will determine the future of how we
get our music. In this corner, we have terrified musicians, led by the aforementioned
greedy, scum-sucking Lars Ulrich, who is so disgustingly rich he could probably
buy a small island north of Borneo and populate it with Playboy playmates who
would feed him bunches of grapes and fan him with large ostrich feathers 24 hours
a day, if he were so inclined. And in this corner, we have Joe Fan, who’s
just like you and me, and has the audacity to truly believe that he deserves his
music for free.
In the months since the Napster boom (it is the fastest growing site in the history
of the Internet, now boasting 25 million users), the ideologies of Joe Fan have
been warped. Joe Fan is disgusted at Lars Ulrich (and rightfully so; c’mon,
he turned in his fans), but Joe Fan now believes that his music should be free,
his defense being, oh, “CDs cost too much.” He may go on to complain
about artists already making plenty of cash and that they themselves are poor,
and don’t want to pay the average list price of a CD, which, depending on
the chain, could be as much as $18.99. Their conclusion? Free music!
Alas, it’s not that simple. And if you’re paying $18.99 for a CD, you’re
not doing much thinking in the first place.
It’s your own fault if you patronize ridiculously overpriced stores like
On Cue and shell out $18.99 for that new Baha Men CD. And when you do that, you’re
being more irrational than Lars in his wildest delusions. It’s called shopping
around. Is this not America? Stand up as a consumer and say that there’s
no way in hell that you’ll pay more than $14.99 for a CD. Really, it’s
not that hard. But every time you bow to the record company and mall chain record
store powers that be by forking over $18.99 for a CD (which comes out to over
$20 with tax), you’re fueling their greed and proving to them that it is
they and not you who control the market. And that’s simply not true.
So now you’re staring down $14.99, at the most, for a new album from an artist,
which I’m sure you’ll agree is a fair trade. Their three months in the
studio for my $14.99? I’ve got no problem with that.
And I’m not Richie Rich, either. I’ve struggled with college poverty
myself, but I’ve grown quite accustom to my lifestyle of Wal-Mart macaroni
and cheese (just a quarter!) and having to, maybe, skimp out on a school book
here or there. But I’ve always been able to come up with funds for an album
that I’ve wanted, and never have let my lack of dolla dolla bills warp my
brain into believing that, hey! I deserve this music for free. I have too much
respect for the artists to do that.
And you may say that artists are being greedy because art shouldn’t be about
commerce. And it shouldn’t. But it is. Music costs money, and that’s
the way it is. Peanut butter should be free, too, but it’s not. Deal with
it.
I see Napster as a treat, possibly the greatest gift ever. I’ve used it,
but mainly to download old school rap songs that are virtually out-of-print (c’mon,
Paperboy’s “Ditty?”) Napster is a superb idea, but if and when
it has to go, I’ll totally understand. It’s far too revolutionary, anarchistic
and ahead of its time to not cause panic, like the Hydro-Tube at Lakeside Mall.
Hey, it was fun while it lasted.
