I have a really old Cambridge pad of graph paper that I use for various purposes, one of which is writing poems. I've probably written 30 poems in it, though you'll only find about 15 as I sometimes give them away to people I think would appreciate them. I write these things because they are what I feel. A pen gives me the power to express myself and create something tangible which reflects my thoughts, feelings, desires, dreams, loves, etc. It seems, however, from what I'm hearing from the entertainment industry that I should be getting paid when people read my writings--after all, it is my 'intellectual property.'

Music is a product, or at least that's what the RIAA wants us to believe. Music has become a commercial product, created with intention to sell and profit. Is this what it's really about? I feel that this is such a shame. God did not give us music for the purpose of hoarding every cent that it could possibly generate for us. I do not deny that musicians need to make a living, but I dare say that money should not be the sole motivation for “art” or what should be art. If you're only in it for the money then you are in it for the wrong reasons.

With all this in mind this whole Napster controversy is of great interest to me. For me personally, Napster has to be one of the best things to come of the Internet. After rediscovering '80s music (I missed it when it was on the radio) I found that all I really had access to in the next decade was Billboard top 100 stuff. I have to think, “how much music has been lost forever simply because it did not make it to the charts?” After all, I hear a lot of great music that I can't find on the radio, and I'm sure there was an underground scene in the '80s as well that has now been lost forever. The underground scene from the past few years will be preserved indefinitely, however, because in the '90s MP3 came around. No longer are we tied to the music that the industry feeds to the radio stations and MTV; no longer are we tied to the crap they tell us is “cool” and that they overplay until it's completely nauseating. A new era is upon us, one that is not dictated by a huge industry with its mind on one thing (and we all know what that is), but we are free to experience real artists' music; music that came from their soul and is not influenced by “what sells.” There is an infinite supply and variety of music available to us on the Internet and through sharing programs such as Napster.

Apparently, however, Napster is liable for users who make copies of copyrighted music they purchased and share with other users. They are currently being sued by the RIAA as well as a couple of artists (who really have no idea how the service even works). Many other artists have come out (and been paraded around by the RIAA) saying that they “need to eat.” It saddens me to think that these “artists” can be against something that sets music free, something that allows them to distribute their work to the masses without the record labels waiving a contract in front of their face reminding them that they're about to be raped of their work. I don't believe they're losing any record sales either--if anything, they're increasing. Think of it this way: I'm not going to buy your CD without hearing it, so if I download it and don't buy it, it isn't because the MP3 is a good substitute, it's because I don't feel it's worth $16 to get a permanent copy of it. But if it is good I may be inspired to buy it--so what do artists have to lose? At worst these “Top 40” artists may lose money because people will find better music, but that's all the better for the artist the consumer found (which they wouldn't have found otherwise).

Want to know the real reason the RIAA is suing? I've yet to figure out Metallica's motives other than just being stupid, but the RIAA I have figured out. They know they aren't losing any money over this; four out of five studies attest to that. They know Napster et al have huge potential and they aren't suing because they don't want music distributed digitally or anyone stepping on their precious copyrights, but rather because they don't want it distributed by anyone else. They've had this hold on over 90% of all recorded and distributed music for decades and they don't want to lose that to some 19-year-old freshman. If they can put Napster and Napster's investors in a compromising situation, they have a better chance of convincing them to make money for the labels by licensing content. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they don't want competition and they're going to either find something illegal about all other distributors or they're going to start denying licenses to popular music for legitimate places like MP3.com and eMusic.com (which has already happened). They aren't as stupid as they act, and they're playing consumers and our government to convince everyone that they can't enter a market with people giving away music for free. So they release a few songs for $2 a download (yes, $2) knowing that they aren't going to sell any--then go crying to congress to shut down all these “pirates.” And if they have their way, they'll be the only ones selling music in a couple of years (back where they were before).

Unfortunately, if the RIAA were controlling Napster they would have to start controlling content. In other words, the 'sharing' part would die, as there's no way to know what is legal and what is not simply by file name. This also means that all the cool 'unknown' music that's available through the service would die with it and we'd be back to where we are today--all music would be spoon fed to us by an industry rather than artists. This would not be cool. Do you really think the RIAA would give underground songs like the “Hampster (sic) Dance Remix” or unsigned artists a platform? Of course not, because they wouldn't make any money from them.

The Internet is my escape, my refuge and strength (yes, I hold an almost Biblical value to my music). There is no possible way that I will allow the industry to come in and try to control another medium for their greedy purposes; the industry is all but obsolete.

I will be boycotting the RIAA indefinitely as they are no longer necessary, but rather have become a disease that plagues all legitimate art. I encourage everyone to join me in a stand against greed and exploitation. There are ways of compensating artists--but buying a CD is not the best way as there are 15 people between the store and the artist who all take a cut leaving the artists squat (“pennies”). I will no longer do anything that directly or indirectly supports an industry with an agenda to suck every ounce of quality and art from an artist all in the name of their stock.

Oh, and by the way, I'll be expecting royalties from *spark-online for everyone that reads this--no possible way I'm letting anyone enjoy my art without paying me for it.

Copyright © 2000 Brian Scates All Rights Reserved

Brian is a graphic artist by trade working for Freebie.com. Brian is the president of screwmetallica.org, a site dedicated to educating the public about the mp3/Napster controversy and its true implications. Brian is also the owner of LogoWonders.com as well as the official “Secretary of Keeping it Real.” In his spare time he is an art major at Stephen F. Austin State University in East Texas.

Contact Brian at: brian@screwmetallica.org

comment? discuss this article on our discussion board