I know this is a topic that's been hashed and rehashed until there's little not covered... but I haven't seen one angle really covered.

This specifically relates to the Napster program. For those unfamiliar with it (if such a thing is possible), it's a nifty little program that links your computer to a huge database (I think it averages around 4000 gigabytes) worth of MP3s, which are all stored on other computers such as yours. It's a free service that allows users to freely trade as many MP3s as they wish.

Now, there's a huge fuss being made right now by RIAA, Metallica, and a few other big name acts over the fact that many copywrite protected songs are being traded over this network. Their claim is that they are suffering untold financial damages due to this infringement. Whether this is true or not I'll leave to the lawyers.

What I'm wondering about, is does this hurt the smaller bands? Is this a case of the giants ganging up (yet again) to defend themselves at the cost of the little guy?

Case in point - me.

I admit. I've downloaded material by the Irish Descendants. I'd never heard of them before, and if not for Napster, I can pretty safely say I never would have heard of them. However, one day I ran into an MP3 of them doing "The Last Shanty", gave it a listen, liked what I heard, found their website (as they are not in any local record store), and am saving to buy a CD or four directly from them.

So on the whole, I'm not going to deny that there's a good chance that some people aren't going to rush out and buy Metallica's new master work for the one or two songs that they like off of the $20 CD. So yes, there is a problem that way.

But for the RIAA (which is supposed to represent ALL of their clients, not just the big ones), isn't this a chance to plug their lower-end clients to a much broader audience than would ever get them any other way?

Just wondering...

M