On Monday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling against Napster, the Internet music-trading service. The ruling, which could seriously cripple or even destroy Napster, states that the service assists in the unauthorized transport of copyrighted material. This legal victory for the music industry gives a lower court the green light to issue an injunction that would essentially shut Napster down.

If you didn’t see this coming, you have no place being anywhere near a place of higher learning. There is simply nothing about Napster that seems to be even vaguely legal. Sure, I’ve been on Napster before, and I admit I’ve even downloaded a few songs. Throughout the duration of my experience, though, I felt completely uneasy, like I was doing something wrong. Well, downloading songs from Napster is theft of intellectual property, which is most definitely wrong. The fact is, there are things that technology enables us to do, and we must make judgments about whether or not we should do them.

Of my several complaints with Napster, my strongest objection is the least legally relevant: it’s just no fun. For me, half of the excitement of getting new music involves the actual purchase. I love going into Rhino with some hard-earned cash burning a hole in my pocket. I enjoy the process of deciding which albums to purchase, taking into account any number of factors: reviews read, recommendations of others, and the good-old gut feeling. Every album in my collection has a story of some sort: where and when I bought it, why I wanted it in the first place, and so on. In the case of a select few albums, I know I’ll never forget the first time I heard them. If I make a bad choice, hell, it’s not the end of the world. Anyhow, it’s pretty rare that I buy an album that I have absolutely no use for.

In addition to my innate capitalist tendencies, it truly bothers me to have an album without the cover art and disc art. I have one burned CD in my collection, which is almost never played due to its complete lack of aesthetic gratification. Also, liner notes are the best place to learn about a band, its members, and the story behind the album. If it weren’t for liner notes, I wouldn’t know that several members of the 49ers sang backup on Huey Lewis’ Fore!, would you?

In terms of legality, I have to side with such anti-Napsterites as Lars Ulrich of Metallica. It pains me to agree with such an ugly, self-indulgent wanker while disagreeing with artists I greatly respect such as Sonic Youth and Chuck D., but I cannot find a way to justify Napster’s operations. Regardless of how corporate and heartless major labels may be, the fact is that they own the copyrights. If artists are so intent on making their music freely available to the masses, they should take a hint from truly independent bands. Fugazi, who keep album and concert ticket prices way down by running their own label, could allow Napster to transfer their material (as owners of their own copyrights), even after the injunction.

Major-label anti-capitalists who rail against Napster should not have entered into contracts which would limit their control of their own music in the first place.

If Napster dies and the music world returns to the way it was two years ago, so be it. At least we won’t have to see founder Shawn Fanning’s smirking mug on the cover of any more magazines.

Anyhow, it seems that Napster does more harm to independent labels, artists, and stores by depriving them of their already meager profits, than it does to aid them through promotion. In the end, it is those independent artists and businesses that are most affected by Napster, not the giant labels who could survive a bit of a drop in profits. All this decision really means is that we’ll have to start paying for music, just like everything else. Is that so strange?