All-out war has broken out in the US music business. Digital Media Manager HOWARD DAVIS looks at the ethical conundrum that is napster.com

WHO would have thought that a piece of shareware named after its 19-year-old creator's haircut ("nappy" meaning curly) would cause such a furore - but it has.

First came MP3s - an incredibly effective way of saving music to your computer in very small file formats without losing music quality. Industry pundits claimed that MP3s would see the end of the music business, but, just as with home-taping, it hasn't.

Then came Napster, a web site that linked users on-line, creating a global database of MP3s. Log on, search for a song, and then download it from somebody else's hard drive - for free.

And it is this "for free" business that has split the music establishment right down the middle. In America the college and university culture has embraced Napster whole-heartedly. And Napster uses the fact that it is just a conduit providing links as a way of getting around the piracy and infringement-of-copyright issues.

However, such is the popularity of Napster that the music business heavyweights have stepped into the arena. At the forefront of all things anti-Napster are rock giants Metallica, one of the largest bands on the planet, led by Swedish metal svengali and almost-pro tennis player Lars Ulrich.

Briefly, the saga is as follows:

April 13, Metallica sue Napster for $9,500,000 in lost earnings - the grounds being that they have sole right to distribute, and gain income from, their songs. Ulrich turns on the melodrama: "It is sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art it is." To my mind, Metallica are not the pinnacle of contemporary culture, but at least he's erudite.

Napster maintains that it is merely a conduit, pointing Metallica to the disclaimer on the web site which cautions against using the web site to "infringe the intellectual property rights of oth-ers".

Metallica retaliate by providing Napster with a list of 330,000 fans who had swapped Metallica downloads. Napster removes their access to the site.

Metallica fans - and bear in mind that metal fans are loyal to the point of delusion - react with such anger that Ulrich was forced to say: "If the requirement for you being a Metallica fan is that I have to give you access to my music for free, I don't want you as a fan."

And this is just one example of the turbulence Napster has created. Rap superstar Eminem, no stranger to controversy himself, went as far as to say, "Whoever put my **** on the Internet, I want to meet that ************ and beat the **** out of him." Indeed.

But not all major recording artists are anti-Napster. Cypress Hill and Limp Bizkit are touring the States in support of Napster. Courtney Love has quit Geffen in a move sparked by Geffen's attitude to copyrighting. In England, Blur and Belle and Sebastian have been vocal in their support of what the "kids" want. So, to put aside the bluster of millionaires worried about their earnings for a moment, what does the Napster revolution really mean?

Firstly, there's the idea that if people download music they won't buy it. I don't agree with this at all. The idea of the commodity is too ingrained into our culture for us to suddenly lose it. Maybe the next generation will be at ease with the Internet and virtual commodities, but for now I don't think we've seen the end of the CD. As one member of the Offspring (another hugely successful, American band) said, "Last year we were the most downloaded band on the Internet and, jeez, it certainly didn't hurt our record sales."

Then there's the ethical question. Ulrich is quite right in claiming copyright to his own songs. Yet, if Metallica weren't a billion-dollar corporate rock machine, but another struggling band, would they still feel the same.

As Chuck D, of rap band Public Enemy, points out: "So many artists don't get a chance to be on radio or MTV, this is how they get heard."

To me, art is more than money and this is inherent within the artistic ideal.

The internet was created as a means of sharing information, not a way of making money. And, as we have seen with the bottom falling out of dot.com stock-market flotations, the Internet is not easily used to gain revenue. To take the whole situation to the extreme, prohibition does not work. It only serves to send the perpetrators underground. Surely, a more sane approach would be to start subscription charges to sites like Napster sites, in order to capitalise on what will always take place, sanctioned or otherwise.

But the fact of the matter is that nothing will change the attitude of major record labels towards the Napster and the Internet. It is far easier to resist change and continue to make millions from CD sales than to try to prejudge the future and embrace new technology, especially one that throws up new controversies every year.

Yet the Internet, by its very nature, allows little cabals to exist who thrive on perverting the system, getting one over on major corporations, and giving power back to the people. And isn't this idea of anarchy the back-bone of the rock n roll ideal?

Indeed, is the Internet the new rock 'n' roll?

Picture - EARNINGS CLAIM: Drummer Lars Ulrich, second left, with other members of the Metallica band, James Hetfield, left, Kirk Hammett and Jason Newstead