It's a "minds and hearts" problem (Score 1)

The RIAA only has to show the statistics: virtually no unsigned artists are benefitting from Napster. At least, not in comparison to the huge volume of commercial music distributed by the major labels. And Boies himself claims that only 2% of artists are signed. Therefore, by the RIAA's stats, his particular assertion about controlling the means of distribution is unfounded.

The truly great (and, sadly, late) guitarist Howard Roberts once observed, "People don't know what they like-- they like what they know." That's why RIAA-controlled acts overwhelmingly dominate Napster traffic; obviously, people are sharing what's popular.

And why is it popular? Because the RIAA's member companies fund the "independent" promotion which buys that popularity. Reread Courtney Love does the math and Steve Albini's The Problem With Music . In that sense, the RIAA already controls Napster, just as it controls the longer-established distribution channels-- illegally, immorally, and (at least to this point) untouchably. Whether Boies can establish this in court is another matter.

As an unsigned artist, I've considered making my music available on Napster, but what good would it do me? Even if all mention of RIAA-controlled acts vanished from Napster servers overnight, how would a Napster user find me tomorrow? How would s/he know what search terms to use?

Sadly, about the only promotion method available to unknown, unsigned artists like myself is shameless, if subtle, spamming, such as this.
--
syrynx