To the editors:

As a Harvard alumnus and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) executive, I write in response to The Crimson’s editorial “Wrath of the RIAA” (Apr. 18), which sets forth the same tired and incorrect arguments about the modern music industry that have become popular among its critics. While we appreciate The Crimson’s (obligatory) shared concern for the protection of intellectual property rights, the editorial’s characterization of our relationship with technology is terribly out of tune.

The assertion that record companies are “fighting the future,” or that they aim to “cure” fans’ desire for music on the Internet, could not be more wrong. Record companies are as enthusiastic as any music fan about the explosion of new ways for consumers to enjoy better sounding music in the cutting-edge formats we all desire. Again and again, we have embraced the technological advances that have allowed tens of millions of people around the world to enjoy the music we create. From scores of download and subscription services to Internet radio to ringtunes, we are aggressively licensing music to a host of legitimate services.

We know as well as anyone the plethora of consumer business models that never before existed, and that technology now makes possible. These new models are exciting, and offer benefits to both the record companies and the consumer. But none of these models will flourish if they are forced to compete with “free.” Besides sympathizing with the dozen or so Harvard students that were sued for their illegal conduct, perhaps The Crimson should also take note of the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs in the past few years at all levels of the music supply chain: from labels, to engineers and technicians, to manufacturing and shipping companies, to record stores. Or you might comment upon the countless artists that can no longer make a living because of piracy.

Your arguments on the “exorbitant” price of music are also misplaced. If a consumer believes the cost of a particular item—a stereo, a bike, a pair of jeans—is too high, you would never turn that around as justification to shoplift the item. Why should music be any different? Moreover, the relative price of music has risen very little in recent decades when compared to most other forms of entertainment (such as movies and sporting events). Perhaps if consumers realized that record companies typically invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in each artist, and that they recover this investment on very few of those artists, they would understand that much more goes into the cost of a compact disc than the paper and plastic that comprise it.

This is an incredibly exciting time for music, and we hope the future is full of even more music offered through more legitimate online distribution channels. Yet, the legitimate online marketplace will never fully flourish while piracy is allowed to run rampant. No one is well served—not students, not administrators and especially not fans who love music—when theft is allowed to prevail. And illegal file-sharing is theft, plain and simple

MICHAEL J. HUPPE

Washington, D.C.

April 29, 2005

The writer is RIAA Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and a 1995 graduate of Harvard Law School.