A copy of the letter sent to a journalist (David Coursey) who blasted Napster.

I would like to say I disagree wholeheartedly with your article on Napster. Calling them a "greedy bunch of corporate raiders trying to make their fortune off the property of others" is a completely wrong and a totally misinformed opinion; their service is free. Next time do some research before you throw out insults with no basis. However I think the statement that Napster is an easy target is correct. RIAA is threatened by any service/individual/technology that could take even a penny from their incredibly large multi million dollar bank account, and it's time they realized that no matter how hard they try to control the distribution of their music, SOMEONE out there is going to find a way to get around their barbed wire electric copyrights. They can't shut down everyone. There are still services out there like Mp3.com and a host of other easily downloadable programs that allow file swapping amongst users or directly from the service itself. And they aren't limited to mp3's. There are a few out there that make images, programs, and other copyrighted materials to be leaked out into the non-paying public.

Basically, I feel that Napster itself is not to blame for the way users were using their service. Yes, they could have made more of an effort to monitor which users were abusing the technology, i.e. copying a CD and turning it into an mp3 for distribution, but basically they weren't the ones who were violating the precious copyrights of the very not hurting artists.

Another point I'd like to make on that subject, is, how is Napster any different from a library?? All those books are copyrighted, and the authors are definitely losing money by having their books available for free to an unlimited number of readers. But you don't see them crying foul and suing every library that distributes their materials. Or how about the radio? And people have been recording songs off the radio for years but no one has a problem with it.

Also, Napster does allow for unknown artists to have their music heard. Perhaps RIAA feels threatened by the fact that people no longer have to beg producers to give them a contract which is more beneficial to the producers than the artists. Some people out there are willing to share their art for free. Unlike the artists like Britney Spears, who I hope you never have the unfortunate experience of hearing live; she can't sing a note but as long as she looks good the music industry has ways of making her electronically sound good. And she's making millions.

The other thing I'd like to know is, how does the RIAA figure they're losing money? I'd like to see some actual numbers supporting that "fact". Almost everyone I've talked to has the same opinion that I do, that buying a CD is a waste of money. First of all, they're way overpriced. Second, there are usually only one or two songs on the entire CD that we like and after about 3 weeks we're sick of them and the CD goes on the shelf to collect dust. If we download a song from Napster we listen to it for a few days then delete it. If we really like the music of the artist we go buy the CD (the quality of mp3s usually isn't great), and people flock by the thousands to see these artists live. No money lost there. If they are really concerned about the mp3's why don't they make a program themselves and charge a fee for it? I wouldn't mind paying 5 or 10 bucks a month.

Also Napster provides exposure for the artists that aren't well known because they aren't pushed in our faces by the industry like the boy bands and the breasty teen girls are. We hear a song somewhere, like it, and download that and a few others by that artist. It provides free exposure to the underappreciated artists.

I would just like to say I think you and all the other bandwagon RIAA fans should stop treating Napster like the enemy. You act as if Napster is the technological equivalent of an international ring of thieves going into music stores all over the world, stealing CD's and distributing them on the black market causing the "talented" artists to starve and reducing them to street performers relying on the kindness of strangers to drop a few coins in their guitar cases. Give me a break.

Sincerely,
Shannon