With the Napster lawsuit looming over college campuses, questions have arisen about what is and is not legal when it comes to sharing music. I won’t deny I am a Napster fan. I have used it since it came out and last I looked, I had over 600 songs on my computer. I don’t see a problem with music sharing. It’s an excellent way for music lovers to preview new albums and for new bands to gain exposure. It’s hard to make it without connections. Sites like Napster make it easier. My tastes have expanded since I got Napster because I can try new music risk-free. I would never buy a CD if I knew nothing about the band. Money is too hard to come by to blow on over-priced CDs. If I like something, I get more, and if not, I delete it. There is a whole crop of interesting things you can get on Napster that you probably couldn’t find anywhere else, especially in corporate stores like Musicland and Sam Goody. Where else could you come across something like “Speed Racer Porno Remix” or a dance remix of AC/DC, Def Lepard or Guns `N Roses songs. I can’t think of many. On the other end of the spectrum, however, the music industry is claiming that Napster and sites like it are illegal and people are obtaining illegal copies of copyrighted music. I have to admit that most of the music that I have is from well-known people, but its just too easy when you hear a song on the radio to go download it instead of running to the store to buy the CD. I don’t think there is a problem with it either. I don’t think that its fair that music artists have one good song on a CD and the rest is pure crap. It’s not worth the $15 dollars you have to shell out for one song that you get sick of in a couple of weeks anyway. If artists are good enough to make an album with mostly good songs, then it’s worth buying. I’m all about supporting musicians who deserve it. Musicians should earn the right to be millionaires by being talented. Since Napster, my music buying has gone down substantially, but it isn’t because I have Napster. It is because Napster gives me the option to preview a CD before buying it. It’s no big secret that a lot of times after you buy a CD you regret it. Napster just lets you find that out before you spend the money. I think half the reason why artists such as Dr. Dre and Metallica are getting their panties in such a wad over Napster is because they know they can sell albums solely on their names, not on talent. They just don’t want to try and make something good or face the fact that they have already had their day in the sun and they don’t want their fans to know it until they have dropped $15 on their CDs. I shouldn’t bash on the entire music industry like they are all united in their fight against Napster. Artists such as Limp Bizkit and Hole have publicly made statements that they support Napster and what it stands for. I even heard yesterday that Smashing Pumpkins are planning on releasing their last album strictly over the Internet, much to the dismay of the record industry, I’m sure. I think its a bold step for artists to do this because their necks are at stake when they go against the norm. I also think its interesting that bands who are truly good don’t feel threatened at all by how readily available their music is online. They must know they will sell records no matter what, unlike their `all washed up’ counterparts who are still clinging to their name, trying to make one last million before throwing in the towel. The sketchy part about all these MP3 wars is at what point does sharing music cross the line into being illegal? The reason that the lawsuit is jumping back and forth from the side of the music industry to Napster’s side is because the law can be interpreted in many ways. Strictly sharing music for non-commercial purposes is perfectly legal. That is what the majority of Napster users are doing. It becomes illegal when people start using them for commercial uses such as burning and selling their own CDs. The problem with that is the music is copyrighted to the artists, and when people make copies from copies, money that should be going to record stores and musicians isn’t. All of these losses are jacking the prices of CDs up, further deterring people from buying CDs. Especially when you can burn a CD for less than $5. In order to solve this problem and make everyone happy, I’m afraid that someone is going to have to bend, and I’ll bet its going to be Napster. Either Napster is going to have to shell out some major bucks or start charging for their service. Neither of which is too appealing to people like myself who have grown to depend on places like Napster to get music. In order to save the music industry, artists are just going to have to start trying harder to make albums that are good enough to make people want to buy them . Until then, people are going to be getting their music for free, and if it’s not from Napster, it’s going to be from some other place.