For the majority of us, the emergence of high-tech technology has been a godsend. Communication has become faster and easier. We have more tools to get more accomplished in less time. There are Internet search engines allowing us to relax in the comfort of our own homes when researching a project, instead of being forced to flock to the library for material.

However, not everyone benefits from the state-of-the-art technology. More specifically mainstream music artists, who have realized one hot radio hit guarantees them no profit when it comes to album sales.

After the court ruling against Shawn Fanning’s Napster last year marked the demise of arguably America’s biggest online music swapping site, many fans were grinding their teeth at the thought that sites mimicking the download giant would also be slapped with a lawsuit. This has not been the case though. With the economy in the doldrums, more and more people are using Internet music swapping sites such as WinMx and Kazaa.

I mean really, who wants to pay between $12 and $17 for a single compact disc that can either be burned from a friend or downloaded? Although, technically, recording artists’ work is being stolen, I can bet most people don’t feel much guilt downloading songs, especially from artists that are established multi-millionaires.

Music labels should be worried though. No significant steps have been taken to outlaw other replica Napster sites completely. Perhaps artists have succumbed to the fact that with technology there comes a price to pay, but I know they have not given up on the fight against Internet piracy.

Artists such as Metallica and Eminem have both spoken out on the detrimental effects Internet music swapping has on artists and have presented scenarios that depict the artists as people who work, but don’t get paid for their accomplishments. In theory this may be true, but most bands with a big hit don’t go home empty-handed by any means since they are essentially contracted by the record labels that produce their albums for distribution world-wide.

However, as Internet music swapping sites become more prevalent, the problem may have devastating effects on already sinking CD sales. Many Internet sites selling CDs have cited sales drops by as much as 70 percent in the last few months, in comparison to last year’s numbers. Although one also has to take into consideration the popularity of used albums, which typically sell for half the price of a new album or less, depending on the condition of them.

I personally don’t balk at the use of Internet swapping sites and I doubt most young adults now-a-days do either. I know my 15-year-old brother, who was introduced to Napster at the ripe young age of 12, has become a magnet to Internet swapping sites and the majority of albums he owns he has either burned or downloaded them in their entirety. He has bought maybe three albums maximum in his lifetime.

Until these sites are regulated or limit users to specific songs though, artists cannot expect people not to download music at a cost to them. More sites have cropped up that basically let you download a certain number of songs per month for a slight fee, but those for the most part have fizzled out because of the many sites that remain free and are easily accessible.

Typically, if an album is laden with radio hits, artists generally don’t have to worry about sales since most albums with numerous hits end up being chart-toppers. Whether the music swapping Internet sites will ever be a thing of the past is a very interesting question. With technology becoming continuously enhanced, it is likely no matter what courts attempt to do to ban music swapping sites people will find a way around their rulings. Copying CDs has already become the norm, and as the younger generations get older, it is likely that artists’ album sales will continue to decline while more people download music at an alarming rate.

Unless these swapping sites are permanently outlawed, it is highly unlikely that there will be an upswing in album sales. That’s just the reality of the matter: Why pay for something that you can essentially get for free? People don’t care if it is considered stealing, because downloading music has become such an accepted practice in society. I know I really have never thought twice about downloading music.

We live in a society that sees no wrong in it because getting free music via the Internet benefits us, so why should we care about the rich artists who painstakingly produce the music?

I may be just as guilty as the next person when it comes to downloading music, but on the same token I own over 250 albums that I legally bought, and continue to buy albums that pique my interest. And that aforementioned figure is arguably higher than what people in younger generations like my brother’s, who have been exposed so extensively to Internet music swapping sites, will ultimately ever be.