The only party which gets little to no money from the iTunes Music Store sales are the artists that actually make the music.

I believe that was Verizon and the story came from the oh so not biased Consumerist.com

http://consumerist.com/consumer/veri...ong-220999.php

Then based on the assumed truth of cwtnospam's comment above, I revise my previous statement: the potential savings of online music distribution are being eaten up almost entirely by music industry fat cats!

I still stand by my reasoning for not purchasing music online, however.

As it has been since the beginning of the industry. ;)

Well, you can kind of blame the Beatles and the Rolling Stones for this. You see corporations saw the big boom of music in the 60s and were like, hey we can make money from this? Thus having corporate sponsored tours, and everyone gets rich, except the artist of course.

Some good friends of mine are in a band that was once signed to RCA records. RCA gave them some money up front (which is technically a loan, thats how it works) and they cut an album on RCA. Now, the person who managed them at RCA got fired, along with several other managers/producers, and when that happens all contracts under those people are automatically up for renegotiation. In the end they broke even, lost a whole album to RCA, got new equipment and a new touring van. I say they did well in the end, but they did lose an entire album to RCA in the process.

Well said.

And while we are on the topic of lawsuits, $100 says someone starts a lawsuit against apple for the iPhone price drop.

This is one of the reasons that I support iTunes actually. You can put independently published music on iTunes and sell it. Granted, you won't have the same advertising. But between iTunes, a good website and, oh, I don't know, some talent? You can make things work for yourself. I have songs from bands that only tour five bars in remote corners of the country...I really think iTMS can allow the industry fat cats to be overcome :).

Does anyone think that this lawsuit may have ensued, partially because the plaintiff is a lawyer who probably DID read the contracts associated with the phone service activation. If so, I agree with his argument and position.

Many of the first iPhone bills that were issued created shock waves to the unsuspecting consumer, because of the extremely high text messaging and data packet costs that were minimally defined. Everyone saw the young lady who received the $400 bill for all her endless texting on YouTube; well on a grander level, why does the consumer NOT have the right to know the exceptions for charges when one signs on the dotted line?

As for iTunes, they created a most trustworthy interface, however I prefer emusic ... at one third the cost, and delivers my mp3s to the desktop to place wherever I desire. Also emusic regularly showcases acts that are not mainstream as the above poster mentioned. A viable vehicle to showcase undiscovered talent at a more nominal charge.

I'm quite new to this site, and am extremely impressed with the quality and technical expertise of the postings. Kudos and thanks.