When I was eleven years-old, I discovered Napster. I watched my brother, six years my senior, download a song within a half-hour (ah, the download speeds of ten years ago) and saw how easy it was to simply type in an artist's name and wait patiently as an entire list of their material appeared, ready to be selectively picked like a berry off a vine. For my eleven year-old self, it was the start of something magical. Having never really been an avid fan of music before then, it allowed me to explore a limitless landscape of songs and albums from bands and artists I'd never heard before.
I grew up with Napster, and never once did it ever occur to me that I was stealing. I had never stolen before, whether it was candy from convenience stores or clothes from malls. I knew that was wrong. But I never thought that taking a song off the internet was theft. I guess I was too excited about discovering all of this new music that I remained oblivious to the hubbub that was generated by the legal and moral ramifications of downloading an artist's material for free.
One day, I logged on to Napster as I did virtually every afternoon, hoping to download the newest Eminem song I heard on the radio. My attempt was cut short by a pop-up message stating, "The artist Dr. Dre has requested that your access to Napster be terminated for alleged copyright infringement." I was banned, excluded from a utopia in which I could hear any song I ever wanted at the click of a mouse. I took it personally. Dr. Dre was mad at me. Why? I hadn't forgot about Dre. All I wanted to do was enjoy such riveting tracks as "Bitch Niggaz" and "Deeez Nuts." It never occurred to me that Dr. Dre was losing money because I was downloading these files. I didn't realize I was putting him out of a home.
Well, that's because I wasn't.
For local acts and big artists alike, file-sharing has been somewhat of a blessing in disguise. Fledgling groups looking to gain popularity have been able to share their music worldwide, allowing anyone with even moderate computer skills the ability to download their album within minutes, put it on their iPod, and share with friends. Yes, it's true that they are losing the small royalty for the CD purchase that they receive from the record company, but in return they are gaining hundreds (thousands?) of fans who will enjoy their music and tell the world. It's an exponential climb: the more people who download the album, the more are able to share it. All of a sudden, touring groups that no one has heard of see increased attendance at shows in cities where they thought no one cared. Increased attendance leads to a bigger cut at the door and merch table purchases such as t-shirts, stickers, and yes, even vinyl and CD sales. This effectively cuts out the middle man (record labels) and allows the artist to get paid directly for their product. It's a much more personal relationship, and it's a lot more than they would have got if their albums were not available for free on the Internet.
While it is true that bigger artists are more dependent on music sales to ensure they remain signed and supported by their record label, they can also count on increased marketing and money generated from cross-promotion, as well as larger venues to fill with adoring fans who will shell out $50+ on a ticket for a live show. In the reality that we live in today, big artists are doing just fine and most likely have much more money than you or me. Trust me, Dr. Dre (as he will tell you in many of his songs) is rolling in dough.
Ten years after I got banned from Napster, I now have over twenty gigabytes of music on my computer's hard drive, a sizable library (though not nearly as large as some) that contains over 3000 songs from hundreds of artists and bands. That includes my man Dre. I play several instruments, attend live concerts, and consider music to be a major part of my life. Today, I have no qualms about downloading music "illegally." In fact, I wouldn't be the person I am if it wasn't for file-sharing.
If a band I like (big or small) comes through my town, I will always pay the full ticket price to go. My friends will come with me, as one of us would have surely showed the others the music of the group in question. Some of us will buy t-shirts. Others will snatch a limited edition, tour-only pressing of the band's new 7". It is important to do this. The artists definitely need financial support, and if you like a group and enjoy their music it's the least you can do to keep them going. But do it directly. Don't let the money pass hands, allowing CD carriers like Wal-Mart to get a cut of the profits.
Music is not about making money. It's about forming a connection with the listener. It elicits an emotion or idea that one would not otherwise have. It is for our enjoyment. The music I've downloaded has made me a better person. It's expanded my knowledge of the world, provided an emotional release, and gotten me through some hard times.
We (the listener) should not have to pay money for this connection. Nor should we take a risk and shell out ten dollars or more when we don't enjoy the music and the connection isn't there. If I download an album and dislike it, I never listen to it again, simple as that. Had I paid for the album, it would have worked out the same way. The artist who I've "stolen" from won't see me at the live show, nor would they if I had actually purchased the album.
There are an infinite number of people who will disagree with me, ranging from the average person, to artists, to record label execs, and so on. It's undeniable that record labels small and big alike have seen a dip in profits since file-sharing has become common practice. But we don't need a middleman hiking the price on a relationship that should exist between artist and listener. Music is an emotional being, not a commodity to be bought and sold.
Ten years later, Napster is no longer a free file-sharing network, but a myriad of other programs have replaced it. Since file-sharing is a relatively new concept, it's hard to see the long-term benefits it will provide. But I can tell you that there are thousands of bands that would not have survived past their first album if there hadn't been avid music fans downloading the songs, telling their friends, and going to the show.
So Dr. Dre, it was nothing personal. My mom would never have bought me The Chronic when I was eleven, and I definitely didn't have the money to buy it. But if you ever come through my city, the drinks are on me. I may even buy a t-shirt or two.
