To pirate or not to pirate, that is the question. While that interrogative may have seemed appropriate for swashbucklers, recent advances in computer technology have made it relevant to college students who don’t hijack Spanish galleons.

Chances are, you’re a pirate. Instead of navigating the seas in search of plunder, you and your friends surf the network looking for hacked software. Even if you don’t have a cracked copy of your favorite game in a subdirectory on your computer, you probably have some MP3s and a Winamp player.

Both items violate federal copyright laws — the same laws you see on the FBI warning on your favorite video. And while the police cannot break down your door and arrest you for copying “Episode I” in your own home, they can track file sharing over the Internet. Although there have been few arrests, the ones made have involved stiff fines and unpleasant prison sentences.

Recently, software piracy has been getting a lot of media attention since the release of programs like Napster and Gnutella that allow ordinary citizens to access and download files from other’s computers. Sales of those programs are as legal as selling a bong, but the odds are good they will be used for illegal activities like software piracy and copyright infringement.

And just like the gun manufactures who make and sell a legal product sometimes used in an illegal manner, Napster is being sued for selling a product that encourages illegal behavior.

College students are more at risk of engaging in piracy and getting caught, but the question isn’t whether or not we do it, but how wrong is it and do we feel justified?

Copyright infringement is illegal like speeding. The law says it’s wrong, but society views the matter differently. Minor infractions seem to be permissible, while gross misdeeds bring jail sentences.

Pirating is no different. Getting caught and paying a fine is outweighed by the benefits and perceived justification.

Last week, aging rock group Metallica filed a lawsuit against Napster and three universities for encouraging the trade of copyrighted material.

Drummer Lars Ulrich said in a statement on the Elektra Records Web site that “It is … sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is.”

What is taking place is not trading, but sharing. Most people do not charge for MP3 access, they post their collection for people to view and download.

The matter is similar to lending a friend a CD without the possibility of them scratching it. A commodity is bought and sold, art is considered public property for all people to enjoy.

If Ulrich were an artist, he would not be having a problem with people sharing and enjoying his work. He would be pleased his music was finding new listeners, who may in fact be convinced to buy a Metallica album.

A number of songs found on MP3 are not available for sale due to their age. Many songs from past decades have never been re-released on CD and are impossible to come by in stores, but if you go to the local network you’ll find music that pre-dates the phonograph. Any music not currently available for sale should be freely shared in the MP3 format, since no one is making any money anyhow. Those artists who would prefer to sit on their copyrights and prosecute people who share their music are just bitter.

Black markets, like drugs and prostitution, arise because there is an unmet need. In the case of the MP3, consumers are responding to the unchanging price of CDs and the unscrupulous marketing and packaging tactics of the recording industry.

When compact discs debuted more than a decade ago they cost roughly $20, and their high price was justified because of the research and development that went into the new technology. It was believed that as the technology became more common and the cost of manufacturing dropped, the price to the consumer would go down. However, 10 years later, the price has not dropped. Most CDs still cost between $15 and $20 and considering that a CD costs pennies to make ,it is unreasonable to expect consumers to tolerate the situation.

However, high prices are not the real reason behind the spread of the MP3.

If you hear a good song on the radio and you want to purchase it, most of the time you have to buy an album that contains one or two good songs.

The rest of the album is filler that my dog could have written, but because singles are not that popular you have to bite the bullet and pay $15 to hear one good song.

But, with MP3s you can rip that one good song from an album and put it on a playlist with all the other one-hit wonders and have something decent to listen to without swapping CDs in and out. Until the recording industry makes it feasible for consumers to get the music they want at a reasonable price, MP3s will spread in popularity.

Consumers are exasperated by the tactics of the recording industry, and the suit filed by Metallica is a last gasp from the recording industry to stop the free exchange of art.

The lawsuit will fail, not because the jury will sympathize with the consumer, but because one of the universities named in the suit was Yale. And I hear they have a pretty good law school.

Is the distribution of MP3s illegal? Yes. Should we keep doing it? Yes.

---

Aaron Woell is a senior in political science from Bolingbrook, Ill.