Note: This letter was prompted by the outrage against Napster, and the absolutely silly lawsuit Metallica filled against them and Indiana Univeristy

All this controversy surrounding Napster and MP3s seems to have everyone barking at each other, accomplishing nothing. There appears to be a real lack of critical thought on the issue, and as a regular Napster user, an avid music fan, and a purchaser of albums, I thought maybe, just maybe, the recording industry and the artists might want to take a moment to listen to a consumer and a fan. I doubt it, but here goes.

Musicians who are business savvy will survive, and even prosper under the new digital age. Napster and the proliferation of MP3s available on the Internet does not have a significant impact on artists revenue, in fact, it could be a way for progressive musicians and artists to help take some control of their content back from the labels and cut out the profiteering middlemen of distribution.

You see, I am what I consider to be a very prototypical MP3 user. I listen to MPEG radio on occasion, and I use Napster everyday. Why? Because often there is an artist with a single that I would like to hear, and traditional radio or music television programming does not match my tastes in music. I also collect MP3s of some of my favorite artists, and am in the process of digitizing my CD library, so that all of my music is available as an MP3.
Now, am I cheating the artist out of money? No. I am absolutely not, and here’s why.

First, I collect MP3’s from MP3.com which are often local or regional amateur artists. Theses artists are generally not even available for purchase in my area, so they are benefiting greatly from the increased exposure the Internet provides. Even major label artists would exploit this type of exposure, if they were intelligent about increasing their audience.

Second, a number of the MP3s I collect are singles by bands that I would not purchase the CD regardless. I will freely admit that occasionally I succumb to the siren song of a top40 hit. Let’s face it, some of them are quite infectious. However, these are not artists that I would typically add to my permanent music collection. When I was in junior high school, I might have taped the song off commercial radio. Now I “tape” the song via Napster. It doesn’t really matter, I wouldn’t buy the album regardless, no revenue is lost, and at best the artist has increased their potential audience, and I might at least give their next release a listen to. It increases awareness, just like a radio hit or a music video. Now, I understand that stations pay artists royalties via ASCAP, BMI or some other mechanism for broadcast rights, and I think perhaps a similar mechanism could be explored for MP3s. However, I don’t think the artists are loosing millions in this market, just as they aren’t making millions off radio airplay.
Finally, Napster and MP3’s can actually *increase* the money an artist earns from a release. That might come as a shock to many artists, but that’s because they are obviously listening harder to the RIAA then they are to their fan base. How do people get exposure to new music? I would postulate that there are three mechanisms: radio, television, and peers. Radio and television are both increasingly being marginalized by the Internet. Studies show that as children spend more time on line, that time is usually time they previously spent watching TV. Digital convergence means doesn’t mean people will stop listening to catchy pop tunes or watching narrative movies. It means that they might not watch MTV, they might download from MP3.com just as easily. Who suffers in this scenario? It’s the networks and the distributors, not the artists.

However, I think that a very large number of music fans actually learn about new music from their peers, I know I do. When a friend recommends a new artist to me, they might lend me the CD. Or increasingly, they might send me some MP3s of the bands material. I’ll listen to the MP3s. Maybe check Napster for some more songs. And then you know what I will do? If I like the artist, I will go buy the CD. I have a CD collection of over 700 titles, and growing. And it will continue to grow. Why? Because CDs are convenient. I can listen to them in my house, my car, my office. They are portable and easy. In the future, if MP3s were to replace CDs, I’d *still* buy the albums. Why? I want the liner notes, the cover art. I want the experience of knowing what I bought is what the artist created, and as they wanted it presented. Does it matter if that format is on an 8-track, vinyl album, CD-ROM, or bits in an MP3? Hell no. I care about music. Not bits.

Since I began using Napster, my CD collection has grown steadily, and the number of new artists that I find everyday makes my wish list grow much faster than my paycheck can feed it. So why don’t I just grab all those artists in MP3s and “cheat” them out of their hard earned paychecks? Maybe because I’m honest. Give the fans a little credit. We aren’t all out to cheat our favorite band out of a royalty check. Maybe because often only a few songs by an artist are available via MP3s. I want to hear the whole work, not just the two singles. Maybe because I like the experience of listening to an album and reading liner notes and looking at cover art.

So do MP3’s hurt musicians? Will they mark the end of the ability of an artist to make money from music? Not likely. In fact, there are already big artists who are intelligent and seeking ways to *exploit* MP3s for additional exposure and money (Chuck D and the Offspring jump to mind). Need some ideas? A special “web only” release of a few special tracks. Sell “MP3 singles” via a website, or partner with MP3.com or Napster. Put an effort into marketing and exposure in the digital community, and you won’t end up on the bread line; you’ll end up on the cutting edge and profit from it.