Ever since Metallica sued Napster in 2000, the illegal sharing of music has been a much debated issue. In general, consumers accuse musicians and record companies of being greedy and charging too much for music, while musicians and record companies accuse consumers of being greedy and stealing the over-priced music. But the argument isn’t this black and white, as there are some consumers opposed to music downloading and some musicians in favor of it. I happen to be one of those musicians.

This isn’t to say that I condone illegal activity. However, after simultaneously playing the roles of aspiring musician and music devourer, I believe there’s a middle ground that neither side of this battle has been able to reach.

Metallica’s drummer, Lars Ulrich, told Rolling Stone Magazine last year that the attack on Napster wasn’t what it appeared to be. “It wasn’t about money. It was about control. I’ll give away all my [stuff] for free. But I’ll decide when and where and how,” Ulrich said.

1. This is precisely the attitude Radiohead members took in October of 2007 when they released their album “In Rainbows” and allowed fans to pay whatever they wanted for it. According to an NME Magazine article, they had already made more money within the first two months of the experiment than they had from all the sales of their last album, which had been released four years prior.

2. Along the same lines, Nine Inch Nails independently released its album “Ghosts I-IV” in March 2008 under a Creative Commons license and made more than $1.6 million the first week it was released.

3. The examples of Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead, however, aren’t cases of illegal downloading. Radiohead was fully aware that many fans wouldn’t pay a penny for its album, and Nine Inch Nails offered “Ghosts I-IV” in different packages ranging from the $5 download to the $300 Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition.

The reason they were so successful in doing this is because they did it independently, and at a price reasonable enough that consumers didn’t feel they needed to obtain it illegally. If Radiohead can make more money in two months of giving an album away for free than it did in four years of selling an album through a record company, then it’s pretty obvious where most of that money is going. So, in the case of illegally downloading music by a signed band, the ones who lose the most are record companies. I don’t have an ounce of sympathy for them.

The only time artists really lose a lot of money by illegal downloading is when they are bigger and have more control of their music, whether they’re signed or not. So, while acts like Metallica and Celine Dion may be losing more money than other artists, it’s only because they’re already well-off and have made a name for themselves. Sorry, guys, I don’t feel bad for you either.

The point these complaining artists are missing is that the music itself shouldn’t be treated as the final product. Instead, it should be viewed as advertising to get people to buy merchandise and go to concerts.

The music itself has never been how musicians get a majority of their money — they get it from concerts, TV appearances, T-shirts, posters and other tie-ins. When my band and I put our new album online for free last May, we were fully aware that we wouldn’t get money from it. We were more concerned with people hearing our music. Obviously Metallica has a bigger fan base than my band, but that doesn’t mean they should stop trying to gain new fans and expect millions of dollars for nothing. It should always be about the music, not the money.

The only true victims of music downloading, whether legal or not, are the owners of CD and record stores. I still prefer buying a CD to downloading songs on iTunes, and it’s become increasingly difficult to find any of these shops in business. They are the ones with the right to complain, not artists and record companies, and yet I haven’t heard them whining half as much as the artists and record companies. Maybe they’re the only ones mature enough to realize that that’s how business goes.

Anybody who can earn a decent living making music has no right to complain about his or her music being downloaded illegally. Anyone who does is forgetting the reason he or she started playing; and the music should always be more important than the money. I’d be just as thrilled to hear that someone stole my band’s music as I am when someone buys it. The important point is that someone new has it to listen to, which should always be the artist’s priority.

The best solution is for everyone to stop being greedy. Artists need to stop being money-hungry and remember why they started playing in the first place, while consumers have to abandon the illusion that they should be able to fill up their iPods for free.

The artists should use simple supply and demand to decide how much their music should cost, and not be so surprised when people are stealing it rather than paying $20 for a disc. They should also stop expecting huge profits from album sales and focus on live performance and other tie-ins. This way, consumers will still be willing to buy music and artists will continue making a majority of their income from touring.

And Lars, I’m still waiting for you to give your stuff away for free.

Tom Hummer is a junior in English  from Ames.