Before the recording industry attacks consumers for so-called pirating of its product, it had best look at its own practice of pricing out its customer base. As I write this article, I am listening to a file downloaded off of Napster, yet this hasn't discouraged me from spending money on CDs.

Actually, Napster encourages my music purchases, or at least it would if I didn't feel that I was being robbed every time I bought a CD. It is ludicrous how these giant record companies spend pennies producing compact discs and then sell them to the public at up to twenty dollars each.

The companies justify these price hikes with appeals to their marketing costs. To me, online music sharing, such as Napster provides, is a far better form of advertising. I disdain popular music, and do not listen to the radio, as I feel that the blather they are playing isn't worth three minutes of my time.

I want to hear samples of artists who might interest me before I shell out twenty bucks on something I may hate. Without Napster I would be content listening to the CDs I already own. In fact, the same theoretical copyright infringement is practiced when people borrow CDs from their friends, yet this "infringement" leads to new fans and new customers as well. And with the advent of CD burners, sharing CDs is even worse for record companies. Why aren't they suing Iomega or HP?

Perhaps the trend wouldn't be so bad if companies could come up with artists capable of more than one good song. As far as most current artists are concerned, they put out one or two "good" songs, and a hell of a lot of filler, charge $19.98, and call it an album. Thus, we lend ourselves to downloading the single and saving the money for something that won't be an embarrassment two years from now when we look back at Britney Spears in much the same way that we view New Kids on the Block and Vanilla Ice-jokes as opposed to artists.

Personally, I listen to much more obscure artists, but the same principle holds true. Although I figure I may like an album, because it is similar in style to something I already own and love, I have no way of actually knowing until I can hear it for myself. Unfortunately for me, most people I know don't happen to own the new Flying Burrito Brothers anthology. Unless I have just been given a gift certificate, there's no way I'd spend twenty dollars on such a gamble. However, if I can borrow the album from someone in my hall, or if I can download three or four of its songs, I can tell if it is "my thing" and worth the investment. What the record companies fail to realize is that at twenty dollars an album, most people will deal with what they already own or put up with silence, rather than waste money on the unknown.

The recording industry contends that Napster robs it out of sales. If you ask me, its prices do that job quite nicely. Although I have downloaded Napster, and have made use of a CD burner (for my own personal, non-commercial use), I still would rather own the actual CD, not a copy.

First of all, I would rather patronize my favorite artists and allow those whose music I appreciate to continue production. Secondly, unless one listens to the most mainstream of music, it's difficult to find an entire underground album available to download. Thirdly, the commercial copy of a CD has liner notes and cover art, things one cannot yet duplicate over the Internet.

But twenty dollars is a lot to pay for a nice cover and the song lyrics. Again, it is the recording companies and their avaricious ways that are cutting in on sales, not technology. If CDs were more modestly priced, at eight or ten dollars an album, I would be more than happy to plunk down the cash, save the hour it takes to burn a CD, and have the real thing.

But I'm a practical person, and there's no way to justify such a purchase at current prices. Perhaps what the record companies fear is that once people hear the junk they're trying to sell us, they won't pay for it. Well, how dumb do you have to be?

The record companies should not blame Napster for their problems. They should take a good look at what they're charging and what they're producing. Before they even begin to blame Napster for usurping their sales figures, they should re-evaluate their own marketing strategies. They overprice albums and then sue the only company that's willing to do them the service of free advertising.