The question of remunerating artists is, to me, the more interesting one. Since time immemorial, record companies have ripped off artists. If you doubt this, see Courtney Love's recent rant in Salon , in which she argues forcefully that it's the record companies who are engaging in piracy, not music listeners, and that artists are, essentially, sharecroppers. I have no doubt that record companies have helped to promote the careers of many artists who might have languished in garages otherwise. Equally, however, I am sure that it is not the artists the record companies care about when they complain about Napster and piracy.
Artists make a tiny, tiny amount out of their music compared to the record companies.
The Net's worldwide reach and the ready availability of software to recommend material you've never heard of based on your existing likes and dislikes opens up the possibility that artists may be able to find audiences directly. If they can, mass distribution will matter less. The Open-Source Society . The special technology issue of The American Prospect. The Players Speak Out Metallica's testimony Discuss Napster in the Online Forums.