$1.47M?! That seems like such a low amount to sue over these days. I guess I'm desensitized with all the talk of billions.

wow, that is not good, the court is saying that cost for online music is the same as making and distributing a CD.

Remember artists get a % of sale after costs, What Eminem was trying to show that cost for online music is far less so they should earn more royalties.

Cost for MP3 is far less then CD, you make one copy and down load it millions of times. CD you have to make millions of copies and hope someone buys them. Variable costs are so much less with MP3 and any CD. The artist should make more.

Once the contracts the artists have expire, the artists need to not re-sign, but form their own "label" so they have more control over their music and money. I highly doubt Apple cares which label music is released by since their model for distribution and payment is pretty straight forward. The only "problem" the artists will have is they will not have the money and expertise that the big labels have at their disposal, but if they have money for their clothes, mansions, cars, and "bling", then they should have money to at least fund their musical expenses that will in turn provide them with income.

So, what does this mean for the record company's contention that songs bought online are simply licensed to the end user not sold, and thus the end user has no right to sell the song?

Is this not a complete double standard? How can they pay the artist less because it is a sale and not a license, but get around the Doctrine of First Sale by saying it is a license not a sale?

Can anyone explain this one legally?

Agg do we also need to Bailout M&M?

It's good to see an Artist suing the real criminals, the record labels, instead of suing Apple or p2p users. Too bad he lost though. Apple should start their own record label.