In article ,
ryanm wrote:

That's kind of dumb. If everyone held that view, you never even would've
heard of Jethro Tull, because they never would've been signed.

Okay, it's not fair for acts from the '60s and '70s because the barriers
to entry for music distribution were impossibly high for anyone to do
ANYTHING independently. Today, the industry players are struggling
to do anything possible keep those barriers just as high, but things are
a little bit different now. With a little work and skill, your *demos*
today can be better than your production work would have been 20 years
ago.

They couldn't do anything about it if they wanted to.

Horse ****.

They could mention it in an interview or something. Unless I hear
otherwise, I assume it's the band's idea! If the artists themselves
would give a damn, the status quo could shift overnight from it's
anti-consumer direction. You never hear a single word of dissent from
the artists about the state of the industry. Why is that? Until I see
evidence otherwise, I will continue to assume that everything is just
fine with the artists, and I'll ultimately decide it's not the RIAA I'm
opposed to; it's the artists themselves who are opposed to me being a
consumer of their product.

I won't do business with anyone who makes it clear that they consider me
a criminal first, and a customer second. That includes my favorite
musical acts, if it must.