It has never been about the big bad industry gouging and abusing the poor innocent consumer. A tired and lame argument. People just don't want to pay and they can get away with it. Plain and simple.

Paying 99 cents has been a huge incentive for some people, but most don't even want to pay that. Big bad Apple and big bad Amazon.

There will be safeguards in the future to protect the content producers, it is completely foolish to believe it will not happen. Will people find a way to steal regardless of any safeguards or implementation? Of course, people are just that way. It is in our nature.

PDogz said:

Sandino said:

I can't say I don't wanna see this porno...just to see if the hype as big as been speculated.

I've always thought Gene Simmons was rather attractive, so I did not find his porno a disappointment. He may not have the endowment you'd expect of a ROCK GOD, but he's got nothing to be ashamed of (...in my humble opinion, lol).

Dude did you even see the video. Dude couldn't even fuck properly. Disappointment to the nth power.

SO...yeah.

Gene attractive?

[img:$uid]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_la24zbLR0U1qa27f6.gif[/img:$uid]

Timmy84 said:

SO...yeah.

PDogz said:

AlexdeParis said:

PDogz said:

That's EXACTLY what I've always said. Nobody had a problem back in the day when we used to hold our cassette recorders up to the radio and made our own mixtapes. Same with movies; nobody had a problem when we used our VCR's to record television shows. That's ALL blank tapes used to be sold for!

You're wrong. They had a big problem with it. The music industry hated cassette recorders. The movie industry whined incessantly against VHS and Betamax... technology that has ultimately increased their profits dramatically. Their efforts to keep total control of their current business has often been shortsighted and damaging in the long run; this is no different.

In that case, how quickly we forget. I don't recall any of those rumblings, though it makes sense that it would have occurred.

PDogz said:

JamFanHot said:

Timmy84 said:

SO...yeah.

V10LETBLUES said:

It has never been about the big bad industry gouging and abusing the poor innocent consumer. A tired and lame argument. People just don't want to pay and they can get away with it. Plain and simple.

Paying 99 cents has been a huge incentive for some people, but most don't even want to pay that. Big bad Apple and big bad Amazon.

There will be safeguards in the future to protect the content producers, it is completely foolish to believe it will not happen. Will people find a way to steal regardless of any safeguards or implementation? Of course, people are just that way. It is in our nature.

A voice of reason in this thread.

Mong said:

V10LETBLUES said:

It has never been about the big bad industry gouging and abusing the poor innocent consumer. A tired and lame argument. People just don't want to pay and they can get away with it. Plain and simple.

Paying 99 cents has been a huge incentive for some people, but most don't even want to pay that. Big bad Apple and big bad Amazon.

There will be safeguards in the future to protect the content producers, it is completely foolish to believe it will not happen. Will people find a way to steal regardless of any safeguards or implementation? Of course, people are just that way. It is in our nature.

A voice of reason in this thread.

Yup...agree with you, Prince,...I mean Mong.

V10LETBLUES said:

It has never been about the big bad industry gouging and abusing the poor innocent consumer. A tired and lame argument. People just don't want to pay and they can get away with it. Plain and simple.

Paying 99 cents has been a huge incentive for some people, but most don't even want to pay that. Big bad Apple and big bad Amazon.

There will be safeguards in the future to protect the content producers, it is completely foolish to believe it will not happen. Will people find a way to steal regardless of any safeguards or implementation? Of course, people are just that way. It is in our nature.

I thought it was human nature to share what we like with others. It's just that with the internet, it's way easier & faster to just share with others than before.

Also, in reality, there is no solid proof that 'pirating' has been the complete reason for lack of music sales. Especially, when it's been full well and documented that CD sales have been declining since the latter part of the 90s. Gene is just bitching because his album didn't sell all that well. Though, it has been proven that people will still buy, just not like before though. This is true for a lot of industries though, not just the RIAA or the IFPI.

AlexdeParis said:

PDogz said:

In that case, how quickly we forget. I don't recall any of those rumblings, though it makes sense that it would have occurred.

[img:$uid]http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/home_taping_is_killing_music.gif[/img:$uid] [Edited 10/10/10 16:18pm]

Interesting little article from Billboard in October 1982. Funny how many of the topis we've yakked about here were of TOP concern the the RIAA even then.....

http://books.google.com/b...mp;f=false

Unholyalliance said:

I thought it was human nature to share what we like with others. It's just that with the internet, it's way easier & faster to just share with others than before.

Also, in reality, there is no solid proof that 'pirating' has been the complete reason for lack of music sales. Especially, when it's been full well and documented that CD sales have been declining since the latter part of the 90s. Gene is just bitching because his album didn't sell all that well. Though, it has been proven that people will still buy, just not like before though. This is true for a lot of industries though, not just the RIAA or the IFPI.

Of course there are other factors too, but it is undeniable that the music industry is in decline in large part because of the ease of piracy in music.

Human nature is every emotion and tendency within you. Good and Bad

V10LETBLUES said:

Unholyalliance said:

I thought it was human nature to share what we like with others. It's just that with the internet, it's way easier & faster to just share with others than before.

Also, in reality, there is no solid proof that 'pirating' has been the complete reason for lack of music sales. Especially, when it's been full well and documented that CD sales have been declining since the latter part of the 90s. Gene is just bitching because his album didn't sell all that well. Though, it has been proven that people will still buy, just not like before though. This is true for a lot of industries though, not just the RIAA or the IFPI.

Of course there are other factors too, but it is undeniable that the music industry is in decline in large part because of the ease of piracy in music.

Human nature is every emotion and tendency within you. Good and Bad

But how can you claim that when you have no solid proof of that statement being true? Example, what about the movie industry? Yeah, a lot of people pirate movies, but do you think that stopped everyone from going to the movies? No. People still do. Just because the RIAA claims it doesn't make it real, especially when there is no solid data to back it up.

BklynBabe said:

To me it's like taping music off the radio or borrowing yoir friend's cd to copy. Folk will find ways if they don't want to pay.

Thank you! I made this point in the U2 managers solution to piracy thread a few weeks ago.

I remember back in the day radio stations used to play full lps and i copied them off radio.

How easy is it to burn cd's from your friends and for friends. Go to hell Gene Simmons.

V10LETBLUES said:

Unholyalliance said:

I thought it was human nature to share what we like with others. It's just that with the internet, it's way easier & faster to just share with others than before.

Also, in reality, there is no solid proof that 'pirating' has been the complete reason for lack of music sales. Especially, when it's been full well and documented that CD sales have been declining since the latter part of the 90s. Gene is just bitching because his album didn't sell all that well. Though, it has been proven that people will still buy, just not like before though. This is true for a lot of industries though, not just the RIAA or the IFPI.

Of course there are other factors too, but it is undeniable that the music industry is in decline in large part because of the ease of piracy in music.

Human nature is every emotion and tendency within you. Good and Bad

So, not a bit of greed on the part of the industry is to blame, eh? Its just people downloading?

Well, things are changing. They will have to adapt or die.

phunkdaddy said:

BklynBabe said:

To me it's like taping music off the radio or borrowing yoir friend's cd to copy. Folk will find ways if they don't want to pay.

Thank you! I made this point in the U2 managers solution to piracy thread a few weeks ago.

I remember back in the day radio stations used to play full lps and i copied them off radio.

How easy is it to burn cd's from your friends and for friends. Go to hell Gene Simmons.

Yep,I remember that too.We had an R&B station (KSOL) that would play an entire album at midnight every night of the week.The DJ would annouce it during the day ("Tonight we're gonna play Prince's '1999' album in its entirety") and people would get their blank cassettes ready I taped many albums this way.

SoulAlive said:

phunkdaddy said:

Thank you! I made this point in the U2 managers solution to piracy thread a few weeks ago.

I remember back in the day radio stations used to play full lps and i copied them off radio.

How easy is it to burn cd's from your friends and for friends. Go to hell Gene Simmons.

Yep,I remember that too.We had an R&B station (KSOL) that would play an entire album at midnight every night of the week.The DJ would announce it during the day ("Tonight we're gonna play Prince's '1999' album in its entirety") and people would get their blank cassettes ready I taped many albums this way.

The record companies were paid a percentage for every blank cassette sold, just as the get a % for every blank CD-R disc sold now. What that $ amount is, I don't know.

I click on post too fast.

Someone should inform Mr. Simmons . . .

The music industry stopped going after file-sharers because it wasn't cost effective, for every dollar they recouped, their legal fees were triple that amount. We are speaking about cases where 9 times out of 10 the people being sued settled because the couldn't afford to challenge because of legal cost. You scare the shit out of people tell them they owe "you" $100,000 dollars in restitution and fines but settle for $2,500.

"Always follow the money".

Look, there are already laws on the books to go after, prosecute, and sue those for copyright infringement. The record companies are trying to get around the due process of law. That's what the law is, a process. Time is money and even in these cases when the music industry got people to pay up, it cost them more.

[Edited 10/11/10 9:18am]

He is the absolute definition of the word sellout. All those dolls, T shirts, memorabilia, and even a damn reality show. I'm not surprised he feels this way.

As an older artist, he should be glad that the younger artists are losing money due to file sharing. It's because of them that the older artists can't even get a record deal and as far as his music goes, he's already made the majority of the money that he'll ever make from it.

andykeen said:

Just saw Gene's Porn.....man he has a small cock....and he fucks the hottest chick!! not cool

Is it hairy?

PDogz said:

Sandino said:

I can't say I don't wanna see this porno...just to see if the hype as big as been speculated.

I've always thought Gene Simmons was rather attractive, so I did not find his porno a disappointment. He may not have the endowment you'd expect of a ROCK GOD, but he's got nothing to be ashamed of (...in my humble opinion, lol).

I've always thought he was ugly as hell. The only thing I'd like to do with him is have that big ole long ass tongue of his wrapped around my dick. Now that would be hot.

Paul Stanley is the one I want to see. I want to see if that damn dick is as sexy and hairy as that chest of his.

.

.

.

[Edited 10/11/10 8:59am]

AlexdeParis said:

PDogz said:

In that case, how quickly we forget. I don't recall any of those rumblings, though it makes sense that it would have occurred.

[img:$uid]http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/home_taping_is_killing_music.gif[/img:$uid]

Sho'nuff!

vainandy said:

PDogz said:

I've always thought Gene Simmons was rather attractive, so I did not find his porno a disappointment. He may not have the endowment you'd expect of a ROCK GOD, but he's got nothing to be ashamed of (...in my humble opinion, lol).

I've always thought he was ugly as hell. The only thing I'd like to do with him is have that big ole long ass tongue of his wrapped around my dick. Now that would be hot.

Paul Stanley is the one I want to see. I want to see if that damn dick is as sexy and hairy as that chest of his.

Paul for me was the one that always appeared to be the most comfortable in makeup, lol. But yeah, I get the impression the hairiness extended to ALL areas, lol.

vainandy said:

As an older artist, he should be glad that the younger artists are losing money due to file sharing. It's because of them that the older artists can't even get a record deal and as far as his music goes, he's already made the majority of the money that he'll ever make from it.

Yeah, probably.

It seems to be that people are more prepared to pay high prices for concert tickets due to that thing as well. As they are not spending money on records as much, they'll spend it on gigs. People have gotten absolutely crazed over concerts during the past decade - usually when there's a big name in town the shows sell out very fast. It wasn't really like that in the past decades.

BlaqueKnight said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Of course there are other factors too, but it is undeniable that the music industry is in decline in large part because of the ease of piracy in music.

Human nature is every emotion and tendency within you. Good and Bad

So, not a bit of greed on the part of the industry is to blame, eh? Its just people downloading?

An industry was built off the backs of musicians where artists themselves make the least off the music they make. The fact that the industry is in shambles is a GREAT thing! We are seeing the consequences of actions set forth rooted in greed. the lesson is being learned.

The average CEO makes about 530 times what his employees make. The whole capitalist system is broken. Its commonplace for the average person to dismiss corporations from blame and point the finger at something (someone) more acceptably tangeable. Its not as if they are operating "at cost" on a shoestring budget and paying the artists they survive off of an accepable amount of revenue from the recordings. No. They take a lion's share and then treat the artist the same way a lending institution treats a borrower, only with a much, much higher interest rate.

We as a society ae conditioned to omit corporations from any responsibility in the failures of industry that occur. Blame the consumers.

Well, things are changing. They will have to adapt or die.

All true however, labels as we know it may go, but dont think for a minute that they arent adapting and still making tons of cash, because they are, just in new ways, they have adapted. Gene is talking about a new generation of artist that is going to get screwed just as the last one did. People can talk all they want about, sell your stuff on your own, and things like that, but you still need some sort of bankroll to get going, and some sort of something to keep it going, its only about a 0.1% that actually make money doing that, and the ones that do already are established. The new "deal" are the 360 deals which everyone sells their souls to sign but has no idea what it means in the long run, its just a new way to pull in artists, music labels are not functioning now to push music, they could care less about it, its run by business majors and accountants now, no one at a label has an ounce of cred to be at a label now. they are nothing more than media corporations, concerned with one thing, how can u make us money, not what can u play or do,. But again people dont be fooled into this notion that you can make tons of cash by doing it on your own, that is a false info-mercial that people are buying into like that guy that tells you to buy real estate at 4am in the morning. U gotta have something to make something overall.

Tell that to the thousands of indie artists that eat off their music. The problem is not being able to live off your music; the problem is people who want to be "ballin'" off their music. That requires a bigger investment and that is how artists get caught up. They want the "fame monster" and the only way down that path is through the big 4.

BlaqueKnight said:

Tell that to the thousands of indie artists that eat off their music. The problem is not being able to live off your music; the problem is people who want to be "ballin'" off their music. That requires a bigger investment and that is how artists get caught up. They want the "fame monster" and the only way down that path is through the big 4.

Well thats the thing, i know plenty of so called indie artists that play clubs and gigs or do acting and background work on tv and films, and thats their "other job" but like i have always said if you want to do anything creative be prepared to lose money, and be used to that, and if you can stick with it through that all, then you show your passion for it. I think there is a huge difference between "eating" and "Ballin", you at the end of the day have to have that 9 to 5 to keep you able to do these things, i do theatre shows and films and i wouldnt be able to do them if i didnt have a regular job, but i have yet to really make anything of what i do, because in that system almost no one makes anything

BlaqueKnight said:

So, not a bit of greed on the part of the industry is to blame, eh? Its just people downloading?

An industry was built off the backs of musicians where artists themselves make the least off the music they make. The fact that the industry is in shambles is a GREAT thing! We are seeing the consequences of actions set forth rooted in greed. the lesson is being learned.

The average CEO makes about 530 times what his employees make. The whole capitalist system is broken. Its commonplace for the average person to dismiss corporations from blame and point the finger at something (someone) more acceptably tangeable. Its not as if they are operating "at cost" on a shoestring budget and paying the artists they survive off of an accepable amount of revenue from the recordings. No. They take a lion's share and then treat the artist the same way a lending institution treats a borrower, only with a much, much higher interest rate.

We as a society ae conditioned to omit corporations from any responsibility in the failures of industry that occur. Blame the consumers.

Well, things are changing. They will have to adapt or die.

We are talking two different things here. You want to equate your stance, and justify downloading as a form of retribution against the music industry for what you feel are abuses on their part. I am not anywhere near qualified to get into a debate on the morals of the free enterprise system other than to say looting is not the answer. And that saying it is "tit for tat" is not a good argument either.

When a kid gets his free download he has no premeditated moral indictment against the system,.. just that he is able to get it for free to enjoy without any recourse. If we were talking about utilities, food, water, gasoline or any other resources I would be right there with you on this issue. But we are talking simple commerce where people work for compensation. And for someone to judge who does and does not deserve compensation, or how much compensation one is entitled to, is a little out there.

It may very well be a fact of life that new technology will make it inherently impossible for a music artist to sell their work like he/she once did. But we are not talking about a product or service that has become obsolete, that the consumer does not want, but rather a commodity that the consumer has figured out how to get without paying for it.

I completely agree that music industry has to change to survive, but throwing their hands up and caving in is not a solution either, I and I don't see that happening when there is a good chunk of money to be made.

I don't want too get to deep here, but I have no doubt in my mind about the ingenuity of man when it comes to make a buck, or likewise to figure out how to get something for free. Two very strong and opposing human forces at work that we will never rid ourselves of. We can criticize capitalism because it heightens these human forces, but we will never quell them. That is why Communism has never worked, and why widespread black market corruption is the only outcome.

Its only entertainment, but its not only about having fun, it is a business. And if people put work, time and effort to create it, they deserve compensation and deserve to have our society protect that right just like any other business. It is honest work that employs and feeds people just like any other business. Just because people figured out a way to skip out on the tab, and that an industry screwed up in their shortsightedness does not make it right or that one shouldn't fight to protect their work and business.

And in this case it is justifiable to blame the consumer, but I also agree with you that a lot of the blame should also go to a business that was not taking care of business.

[Edited 10/11/10 14:12pm]

V10LETBLUES said:

We are talking two different things here. You want to equate your stance, and justify downloading as a form of retribution against the music industry for what you feel are abuses on their part. I am not anywhere near qualified to get into a debate on the morals of the free enterprise system other than to say looting is not the answer. And that saying it is "tit for tat" is not a good argument either.

When a kid gets his free download he has no premeditated moral indictment against the system,.. just that he is able to get it for free to enjoy without any recourse. If we were talking about utilities, food, water, gasoline or any other resources I would be right there with you on this issue. But we are talking simple commerce where people work for compensation. And for someone to judge who does and does not deserve compensation, or how much compensation one is entitled to, is a little out there.

It may very well be a fact of life that new technology will make it inherently impossible for a music artist to sell their work like he/she once did. But we are not talking about a product or service that has become obsolete, that the consumer does not want, but rather a commodity that the consumer has figured out how to get without paying for it.

I completely agree that music industry has to change to survive, but throwing their hands up and caving in is not a solution either, I and I don't see that happening when there is a good chunk of money to be made.

I don't want too get to deep here, but I have no doubt in my mind about the ingenuity of man when it comes to make a buck, or likewise to figure out how to get something for free. Two very strong and opposing human forces at work that we will never rid ourselves of. We can criticize capitalism because it heightens these human forces, but we will never quell them. That is why Communism has never worked, and why widespread black market corruption is the only outcome.

Its only entertainment, but its not only about having fun, it is a business. And if people put work, time and effort to create it, they deserve compensation and deserve to have our society protect that right just like any other business. It is honest work that employs and feeds people just like any other business. Just because people figured out a way to skip out on the tab, and that an industry screwed up in their shortsightedness does not make it right or that one shouldn't fight to protect their work and business.

And in this case it is justifiable to blame the consumer, but I also agree with you that a lot of the blame should also go to a business that was not taking care of business.

[Edited 10/11/10 14:12pm]

I'm not justifying anything but rather stating what IS and how it came to be. Napster came about as a result of corporate greed and spawned the downloading age. Well, its here now. That's the reality. No one is stating that artists shouldn't be paid for their work but there has always been a debate on intellectual properties and how much they are worth. I don't feel like going into all of that right now but, I completely disagree that its "justifiable to blame the consumer" when its clear how we came to where we are right now. The consumer AND the artist have been cheated by corporations for years and years now. Now they are being hit back and its absurd to blame the abused for hitting back. Instead of reacting in the right way like Apple did and try to get a piece of the pie, the industry called its lawyers. HA! Fossils like Gene here are still of that same mindset. That is the road to failure. The smartest businessmen know when to jump off the sinking ship. Why do you think labels are forcing 360 deals on artists who are desperate and foolish enough to take them? Suppose your car dealer said he'd sell you a great car for cheap but if you drove anyone around and they gave you gas money, you had to give them part of it. What would you say?

Bottom line is this: artists have to change their business model in order to make money from their music. They can no longer sit back idlely and collect their pennies from labels who overcharge for CDs. Those days are done. The Mays brothers (who started Clear Channel and sold it) jumped right into the next step with LiveNation. They knew where the money was going to go. After they took over the airwaves, they moved right on to the venues because that's where the next move was. They knew because they contributed to the demise by creating a palette of corporate payola with labels.

Rather than trying to protect a dying business, artists have to move forward onto a more direct connection with their audience and restructure how they make their money. There is no escaping this. Its always hardest for those who have made a great deal of money in one area to accept when the well has run dry.

Adapt or die; that's how it is.

[Edited 10/11/10 16:11pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

V10LETBLUES said:

We are talking two different things here. You want to equate your stance, and justify downloading as a form of retribution against the music industry for what you feel are abuses on their part. I am not anywhere near qualified to get into a debate on the morals of the free enterprise system other than to say looting is not the answer. And that saying it is "tit for tat" is not a good argument either.

When a kid gets his free download he has no premeditated moral indictment against the system,.. just that he is able to get it for free to enjoy without any recourse. If we were talking about utilities, food, water, gasoline or any other resources I would be right there with you on this issue. But we are talking simple commerce where people work for compensation. And for someone to judge who does and does not deserve compensation, or how much compensation one is entitled to, is a little out there.

It may very well be a fact of life that new technology will make it inherently impossible for a music artist to sell their work like he/she once did. But we are not talking about a product or service that has become obsolete, that the consumer does not want, but rather a commodity that the consumer has figured out how to get without paying for it.

I completely agree that music industry has to change to survive, but throwing their hands up and caving in is not a solution either, I and I don't see that happening when there is a good chunk of money to be made.

I don't want too get to deep here, but I have no doubt in my mind about the ingenuity of man when it comes to make a buck, or likewise to figure out how to get something for free. Two very strong and opposing human forces at work that we will never rid ourselves of. We can criticize capitalism because it heightens these human forces, but we will never quell them. That is why Communism has never worked, and why widespread black market corruption is the only outcome.

Its only entertainment, but its not only about having fun, it is a business. And if people put work, time and effort to create it, they deserve compensation and deserve to have our society protect that right just like any other business. It is honest work that employs and feeds people just like any other business. Just because people figured out a way to skip out on the tab, and that an industry screwed up in their shortsightedness does not make it right or that one shouldn't fight to protect their work and business.

And in this case it is justifiable to blame the consumer, but I also agree with you that a lot of the blame should also go to a business that was not taking care of business.

[Edited 10/11/10 14:12pm]

I'm not justifying anything but rather stating what IS and how it came to be. Napster came about as a result of corporate greed and spawned the downloading age. Well, its here now. That's the reality. No one is stating that artists shouldn't be paid for their work but there has always been a debate on intellectual properties and how much they are worth. I don't feel like going into all of that right now but, I completely disagree that its "justifiable to blame the consumer" when its clear how we came to where we are right now. The consumer AND the artist have been cheated by corporations for years and years now. Now they are being hit back and its absurd to blame the abused for hitting back. Instead of reacting in the right way like Apple did and try to get a piece of the pie, the industry called its lawyers. HA! Fossils like Gene here are still of that same mindset. That is the road to failure. The smartest businessmen know when to jump off the sinking ship. Why do you think labels are forcing 360 deals on artists who are desperate and foolish enough to take them? Suppose your car dealer said he'd sell you a great car for cheap but if you drove anyone around and they gave you gas money, you had to give them part of it. What would you say?

Bottom line is this: artists have to change their business model in order to make money from their music. They can no longer sit back idlely and collect their pennies from labels who overcharge for CDs. Those days are done. The Mays brothers (who started Clear Channel and sold it) jumped right into the next step with LiveNation. They knew where the money was going to go. After they took over the airwaves, they moved right on to the venues because that's where the next move was. They knew because they contributed to the demise by creating a palette of corporate payola with labels.

Rather than trying to protect a dying business, artists have to move forward onto a more direct connection with their audience and restructure how they make their money. There is no escaping this. Its always hardest for those who have made a great deal of money in one area to accept when the well has run dry.

Adapt or die; that's how it is.

[Edited 10/11/10 16:11pm]

The thing is though, after all those wonderful points you have made, Gene Simmons, has made his money, and is in a different ballpark than 95% of the industry, he owns everything, shit he has to be the only Bass Player in a group to get the rights to everything? So i think we are confusing his statements with him bitching for some money, dude is fucking paid and is going to be paid long after labels crash and burn because he has ownership and that makes u a player in the long run and that is what every artist is going for, but, quite honestly, most were naive to get, no one was forced to do anything, if you went along with the system then you are the blame, no one was pulled off the street and forced to record albums for a corporation, im tired of that NAS mentality, that is played out already, as much as his music. The thing is that the industry has adapted, shit, Chuck D said this about a decade ago, he said the Music Industry will always be, its just how its functioning that will not include what we want anymore. Meaning get used to the Rihanna's and Kesha's of the world on your radio and tube 24/7, thats what you wanted and thats what you got. Things like iTunes are viewed as artist friendly, WHAT?? does anyone know how that functions?, iTunes is another hand grabbing pennies away from an artist, and even more because now albums are sold like Slices of Pizza, so Steve Jobs is just another suit in the mix.

I didn't say itunes was good, I said that Steve & Co. got in the ball game when most labels didn't. iTunes is a major player in an industry where they shouldn't be and it is the fault of the labels. They made moves while labels and the RIAA tried to sue their way through the game.

The lazy ass public is going to have to look for its music, get spoon fed Rih-Ke$h-as 24/7 or stop listening to new music.