Yes, I know — the costs are different. Artists shouldn’t have breakage charges taken out of their digital royalties. But many of those charges were outdated in the CD era, yet they lingered in the contracts like pieces of gum that you couldn’t scrape off your shoes. Like I said at the beginning, I’m not arguing that the labels are reasonable. I’m just saying that downloadable music sales are much closer conceptually to CD sales than they are to a label’s deals with car manufacturers or movie producers.

But if I may digress then work my way back to my point: It amazes me how a mass of journalists reporters and editors — can fail to determine probably the most important (possible) fact after the verdict: Whether Team Eminem will be making a post-trial motion to toss the verdict (really, it has to be insensible) and/or appeal it. It’s one of these findings, I would think, a jury, not a judge, had to make in the first instance, which doesn’t mean the verdict “has” to be “right”. This shouldn’t be the end of the issues, so to speak, but the beginning of the end. The first battle’s been lost, not the war.

John, you care to provide an update as per the above maybe??

This fraction needs to cover all of the fixed costs a label incurs to find, develop, and market talent. Only a small number of bands go on to make money for the label and effectively subsidize the whole operation.

While successful bands may resent having to subsidize an operation that brings new music to the marketplace, they also implicitly signed into this system when they themselves were unknown.

I certainly hope a new digital model emerges that not only supports famous existing acts but also breaks new ones. As much as I love Eminem, I hope there’s newer music to listen to when I’m 80.