The record companies and artists have been pushing a model that while serving there own purposes, has a few inherent flaws as far as we, the consumers are concerned and they are gonna bite them in the ass. We're made to buy whole albums when sometimes all we're interested in is the one decent tune. They sometimes selectively present us with the option to buy a single, usually at an inflated unit price, usually we have to buy the whole CD album. This system could be dictated to us because bootlegging from friends and making home-made compilation tapes were an arduous process resulting in a sub-par quality product. Gnutella and Napster changed all that. we became empowered. Now I'm more than willing to pay something, maybe even up to a dollar or so to license the listening rights to a particular song, provided I could stick it on some digital format. This would lead me to buy many more songs I hear on the radio and on TV that I would never buy if I needed to put the whole album for $10 or $20. Artists will no longer have to wait until ten or twelve songs are available to release them and this would help many newer groups. Self-indulgent artists will also have to accept the fact that some of the works they hold so dear (the B-sides and non-singles) will not be downloaded and therefore financially recognized as often as they would like. If people want CDs replete with liner notes, they have to buy them. I liken this to theater programs (which we pay for in Europe) or concert programs, which some people like to keep as a souvenir. Remixes should be paid for like new releases, which isn't too bad if it only costs a buck a download. The current system reminds me in a way of a restaurant that only has set menus with no substitutions or changes. The sensitive little chef believes that his way is the only way to serve food. Well, give artists that choice. Sometimes albums are made to listen to in their entirety and not a collection of singles. But in that case, let artists face the market.