antiMUSIC is pleased to welcome aboard with Chuck DiMaria, who will be giving us his 2 cents every week on a variety of music topics.

As always the views expressed by the writer do not neccessarily reflect the views of antiMUSIC or the iconoclast entertainment group

You know, this whole downloading thing has gotten real ugly. It started out as warnings, then stern warnings, then lawsuits levied on little people and the alienation of fans from certain artists along with the inevitable cries of "Sellout!"

And who are the players in this Greek tragedy? Well, you've got the people who think that music is free over here, the record companies who say it isn't over there, and the artist caught in the middle, trying not to piss anyone off.

(I want a nice, clean fight. No low punches. When I say break, you break.)

But the question remains: Is downloading wrong?

Being not only a consumer and a musician, but also someone gunning for a record deal (in a perfect world, that is), I'm in a strange position here; I see all sides of this story.

And I got good news and bad news.

Good news is you're right. All of you. Bad news is you're all wrong, too.

Now, before you all start telling me to go perform an obscene act upon myself, just hear me out:

On the one side, you got the consumers who are getting something for free and it's pretty hard to talk them out of giving that up. (Unless you resort to litigation.) The consumer's story is basically this: The artist is reaching a greater audience through downloading. There's more, of course, but that's the one I hear the most. That and, "Hey, dumbass, it's free!" Well, maybe what they mean is music is supposed to be free. (Let's go with that and give them the benefit of the doubt, shall we?)

On the other side you've got the record companies who don't want anyone horning in on their profits. (Please note that I said THEIR profits and not THE ARTIST'S profits. More on that later�)

Lastly, you have the artist, and all he wants is to play music and not get dropped by the record label, all while hopefully earning a sweet paycheck because, to be totally honest with you, having a day job sucks.

And in case any of you were wondering, there isn't going to be a happy ending here.

First of all, music may be free, but creating it will put you deeper into debt than taking Paris and Nicole shopping for shoes. Want to record your own mp3's and put them on the web? Great! Now all you need is a computer that can handle the project, some speakers, a studio-caliber microphone, musical instruments (A Strat will run you close to a grand. A Les Paul about twelve hundred.), recording software, mastering software, cables, stands�

Get the picture?

So, whoever said music was free musta been downloading it at the time rather than making it.

However, there is some truth to the "expanding the artist's audience" statement. Having people listen to and share your music is a great way to expand your audience, but it's not very profitable. (Not that we're obsessed with money or anything, but if you can't pay the bills, you're screwed, plain and simple.) So there has to be something in it for the artist, and usually that's called merchandising. Hell, most artists would say you can download their songs till your fingers bleed, just as long as you buy a tee shirt on the way out.

But we both know that ain't gonna happen, don't we?

As for the record companies, they are pure, unadulterated evil. The record companies live to take a profit. They take their profit from two places: the artist and the audience.

Every dime they give the artist, be it for promotion, recording, tour expenses, are listed as a "recoupable" expense. In other words, the artist has to pay that money back with interest. And the interest rate on a standard record company contract is astronomical. You could get a better rate if you borrowed the money from Tony Soprano.

And of course they want to suck the consumer dry as well. And I'm not talking about them just having a healthy market share. I'm talking they want to suck you Van Helsing good to the last drop bone dry.

Yeah, the record companies are pure evil�too bad the artists and the consumers both need them desperately.

What's that you say? You don't need the record companies; you'll just surf the web for your music. Really? Newsflash, kids: Most of the music out there on the web is garbage. Hell, most of what's at Virgin Megastore is garbage, but it's way worse on the W3. You need a record deal to get into Virgin; all you need to post on the web is a modem. And you're gonna wade through all that in the hopes of finding something worth listening to?

Some of you will, no doubt. But most of you, the vast majority, will not. You want the two-story billboards, the cool music videos and Tiger Beat Magazine. That's how you'll make your decision.

You want exactly what the record company is selling. And why shouldn't you? Face it, you want marketing and hype. It's human nature. (And 50,000,000 N'Sync fans can't be wrong.)

Now, I'm sure there are some of you who are going to say, "There are a lot of artists out there who are doing it without a record company!"

Really? Name ten. Name ten multi-platinum artists who don't have record deals. I dare you. (And, unfortunately, multi-platinum is how you pay the bills.)

Where does that leave us? Pretty much right where we started. The consumers will continue to download because it's free. The record companies will continue to fight for their profits because they're greedy bastards. And the artists will continue to get screwed because the tee shirts were way too expensive in the first place.

So back to the original question: Is downloading wrong?

Kids, in case you haven't figured it out by now, the whole damn system is wrong.

That's my two cents, now gimme my change.

Chuck DiMaria is Los Angeles based musician and antiMUSIC columnist. Check out his website ChuckDiMaria.com for more of his writings, MP3s and more (be sure to read about his adventures in online dating!!)