So Napster are going to be forced to close down soon. Almost certainly. Napster - protector of the innocent, saviour of the meek, defender of basic human rights - will be finally crushed, thanks, in part to Metallica (evil, sell-out, self-serving money-grubbers). What will happen will be a traversty - a blow to liberty, freedom of speech and information, and a damnation of the hypocritical American constitution itself.

Bull. That's all I have to say. Bull. Everyone I know has condemned Metallica for their involvement in the Napster affair. I have seen hate messages on internet newsgroups, appeals to boycott Metallica on a news-board and even entire animations dedicated to ridiculing the band. The lengths some people will go to. In all cases, Metallica have been made out to be the evil ones, with Napster receiving praise for the service they provide. "Metallica have got enough money - why the f*ck do they need to get any more?" is the most common complaint I heard.

Stop right there, because money is the crucial point of the matter. Metallica make music, yes? And Metallica sell the music they make. So it's Metallica's choice to sell the music they make. You may call them sell-outs, but that's their perogative, really - if they want to make money from their music, then fine, as long as it doesn't compromise the quality of the music they make. What exactly did Napster do though? They provided an online service which allowed people to download other people's music free of charge, depriving Metallica of the money which is rightfully their's. In short, they provided an opportunity for theft.

Again, you might say "well fine, but who cares - Metallica are rich and I can't afford to buy their over-priced stuff. Metallica are just in it for the money, the capitalist swine." Yeah, right, and Napster were so selfless. How many people who maintained that Napster were in the right actually stopped to think about the situation as it stood? Napster weren't providing a service from an altruistic bent - they were a company in it to make money as well. Just like Metallica are. But the thing is, Metallica have talent and write songs, whereas Napster were making their money by leeching from that talent. Napster were not defenders of freedom of information, but just a company out to make as much money as possible.

I can find some place in my heart to defend them. You see, some people download mp3s with no intention of ever buying an album. If Napster did not exist, there is no way that you would own a copy of Bob Marley's "Redemption Song", because you wouldn't spend £10 on a CD just to get it. So you would not be depriving the record companies of £10 by downloading it: you'd just be making yourself happy at no-one else's expense. I guess that's fair enough. There is, of course, a danger there. People can start off with that and easily move on to downloading entire albums from the internet - two days after Iron Maiden's "Brave New World" was released, I saw a complete mp3 for the entire album - and that just ain't great. But as long as you are only downloading songs which you would under no other circumstances buy, I can't see how that is morally wrong. It is, of course, illegal, but that's your choice.

For my part, I always want to own a proper version of an album if I like it. I could get a friend to copy the CD for me, but I chose to go out and buy it instead. Normally I get it second hand (sooooooo much cheaper), but I like to own a hard-copy of an album that I like. Perhaps it's over-active morality, more likely it's something hideously materialistic, but either way, I buy the music I like. If others are like me, I guess that Napster (and other mp3 exchanges) should not pose a threat to the music industry.

I worry that people are not like me though. The problem is, mp3s are simply too good quality. A high quality mp3 is not as good as a CD, but it's easily good enough. And it's free. Record companies are thus not going to be able to introduce a new un-copyable format because they cannot use the pretext of higher quality, and the other pretext (smaller) is not applicable to a digital age (well, it is, but smaller file sizes aren't going to deter someone). And this could well lead to the closure of many smaller companies. The big ones will survive, I'm sure, but independent companies with just a few bands (with a few hit songs) will be hit very hard indeed. That surely can't be a good thing for the music industry.

Paradoxically, however, one great consequence of mp3s is that bands will find it easier to get an audience. I have put an mp3 on this page (click here to download a copy of "purified") and even have a small following as a result. And there are exchanges online for people to showcase their talent (if you're from a band and have mp3s you want to me to put online, then send them to me and I will get them out to the world), so it ain't all bad.

The moral of the story is: Napster were not the defenders of all that is good, Metallica are not a euphemism for Satan, mp3s could mean the death of new talent or their enhancement. Who knows? Who cares? They're here to stay. Just don't look at Napster as the purveyors of liberty or Metallica as harbingers of woe.