The fact is; they do.

To put it another way, if NBC became a porn network you can bet Comcast would stop carrying their programming. On the other side, if you setup a porn server you can bet they'll disconnect you.

And because they own the wire, they do in fact have a right to do that. As a customer you are paying for the privilege of using their property.

As a customer you also have a right to give your money to someone else who doesn't restrict you. As I said, that's what I do.

If Linux works for you, than you should use it. Whatever gets the music out of your head and into some stored format the fastest is what you should use.

I use a Mac because I can buy a brand new one turn it on and write music immediately. When I'm ready to do a demo I plug in my Firewire interface and open Garageband. It just works. Right out of the box. No tweaking required.

While Linux is fantastic (and I've used it in various forms since 1993) until it reaches that level of user experience I will not employ it as my primary desktop.

I'm sorry, but the whole idea that we should pass laws making the Internet completely unrestricted is contradictory. Laws by their very nature are restrictive. The laws passed on broadcast TV and radio attest to that.

But assuming it would be possible to pass such a law, it will never happen because any such law would by its very nature violate the rights of the service provider. Can you imagine passing a law which says I can broadcast anything I want over Comcast's cable infrastructure? It would never happen. Because they own the infrastructure, they have a right to decide what goes over it.

Likewise, if they refuse to carry a show I want to see I have a right as a consumer to go with a different carrier.

Bottom line is, if they own the wire, they have a right to set rules on how it may be used. If you don't like the rules they set, go with a different provider. That's what I did.

You do realize that it costs money to create and market an album, right? It also costs money to put a concert together. You can't loose money on both or there's no show anymore. So if nobody's buying albums and concerts are still selling out then ticket prices are going to go up until such a point where they find the highest price while still selling exactly the number of seats available.

This is high school economics.

News stories don't just materialize out of thin air; someone HAS to pay for the reporter's salaries, the news van, etc. If the stories are paid for by advertisers (big business) and government subsidies, what quality of investigative journalism do you think you're going to get?

Woodward and Bernstein were able to dig into Watergate and publish the things they did because the Washington Post was supported by reader subscriptions. Now that our news sources are all funded and owned by big businesses we're getting exactly what THEY pay for.

Personally I would be happy to pay for a newspaper that actually reports something real like they did back then.

Fair enough. Guess it's been about 10 years since I bought a ticket to a show. I really didn't realize they were charging that much these days.

Nice to know the pirates have made music more accessible by driving up concert ticket prices.

Holy shit! Do the bands you go see shoot gold confetti out over the audience or something?

I can't think of a single person I know who has $200 to spend on a concert ticket.

I use Mac's exclusively for the same reason. While the initial investment is higher, I have saved more than I could ever calculate by having a machine that simply works every time I turn it on. I wish everything in the world were as reliable as my Mac.

I'm a musician, BTW. A songwriter. Most of the songwriters and musicians I know prefer Macs for the same reason.

For the same reason a politician aligns himself with a major political party. Would Obama be president right now without the backing of the Democratic party? I assure you, he would not. Likewise, no artist could possibly reach the levels of worldwide fame that people like Beyonce and Taylor Swift enjoy without the backing of a major label.

As to your argument about a "huge reduction in your personal profit," that simply isn't true. While the percentage is certainly lower, 40% of a million dollars is far greater than %80 of $100,000.

As to your argument about "get the promotion your music warrants on its own," I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the Internet, you're just another of millions on millions of people trying to be heard. If you're talking about booking your own radio tours, making your own posters, etc ... when do you have time to make music? Not to mention the fact that many amazing musicians are horrible at promotion. I may have totally missed your point here though.

Wow! You gonna be OK?

J/K

Something does need to be done about the fact that illegal distribution is becoming the norm. Someone has to pay for the music to be produced and if the consumer refuses to do so then the only thing available will be corporate sponsored jingles and free music made at home by hobbyists.

The irony of the "free music" push is that it's actually making the big record companies more powerful while at the same time making it harder for the independent artists it claims to support to make a buck.

I was simply agreeing with the statement that big record companies treat artists like cattle. They always have unfortunately. And as long as there's good looking naive kids out there who can sing, they will continue to do so.

So your opinion is based on a ten year old letter from a rich pop star who suffers from clinical depression and heroin addiction?

I did read it BTW I’m not impressed. She rambles aimlessly from one point to another and doesn’t seem to realize she’s contradicting herself. She says that she would be the first person to file a lawsuit against Napster for infringing her Copyright, then she says that illegal distribution is helping her sell more albums ... huh?

Not that I’m disagreeing with your point. Lots of artists sign stupid contracts, and I agree that the record companies should be taken to task for offering those contracts. They do in fact take advantage of young artists and their naive dreams. Record companies do in fact often operate as con men.

So I agree with your fundamental point but