Record companies have been *screwing* over artists for decades and now they're concerned about "Artist's Rights"? Please.

The fact is that artists rarely make money from the sale of recorded albums. If they're *lucky* they'll get $1.00 - $1.25 per $15 cd sold, only after the record company, the producer, manager, agent, caterer, etc. have all been paid for their "expenses". An album for the artist traditionally is the way to promote said artist. Overpriced t-shirts and touring are how most musicians make money (t-shirts in particular). The person quoted in the article is flat-out wrong.

In some cases, artists contracts have actually been structured (%#@! lawyers) so the more albums they sell, the more in debt to the record company they become.

Furthermore, a lot of this anti-napster/mp3 campaign reeks heavily of being a music industry pr-push. In various articles (like the salon one) you'll *almost always* see an agent/record company hack saying "I showed [Artist X] this technology and s/he was shocked/horrified that s/he (the artist) was being ripped off." A transparent attempt to gain sympathy through the artist.

My guess is that most artists could care less about napster/mp3 trading as record album sales barely trickle down to them and, instead, they appreciate the increased exposure.

The musicians that do seem to be speaking about MP3s/Napster are most likely being pushed by record label/industry pr people, which is why so many of them say the same damn things in every article. And why a lot of them will remain quiet.