I'm talking about the internet.
Specifically, the viability of legal distribution over the internet, and how it should be used to make sure artists get their fair share.

Both iTunes and Napster are offer 'buy online' deals, with tracks for 99c and albums for 9.99. (i mention the prices only because they're EXACTLY THE SAME). iTunes is better known, wheras Napster's allowing five free listens of a song without paying.

The question, however, has nothing to do with either of them specifically. They could be 'music-that-you-listen-to.com'

Will this kind of online *legal* music sharing - from artist to label to site - become accepted modus operandi, or will it be - to the dismay of failing artists, or artists who fail now but who rely on royalties to support their future lifestyle - pushed out entirely by free downloads? (unfortunately, at least with iTunes, the artists only get 11 cents per .99c track...)

Things like BitTorrent and Grokster are very, very difficult to catch or put out of operation, simply because they don't rely on a middleman to function. The question is, of course, will even they fall through when artists fail to make enough money to actually survive? Will composed music be delegated to a nonpaying, hobbyist-only occupation?

And what will that mean for the quality of music? Will it improve, because of improved accessibility and demand for private media? Or will it degrade, due to a lack of funding towards specialized artists?

How could this business be run? What would be the best way to keep up viability for artists - rewarding more popular ones instead of the ones that happen to get picked up by a label, perhaps?

There are thousands of artists who don't get to the Main Record Labels, but they do use the INTERNET to promote themselves. Just check many of the web pages with hundreds of artists you've never heard before, and they do play good music. Just like any of the "Sacred Cows", the time has come for music to be liberated from the big Corporations. I believe that it will be a real free market, no more will we be listening what others decide what is that we have to listen to.

That actually sounds really cool. I've often wondered about the way that licensing companies choose who's 'good enough' to lisence - and if lisencing was thrown out the window period, everyone'd be able to judge for themselves out of everything anyone chose to put up.

All you'd need is a database or something similar so that all of the songs were just as easily accessible to everyone and you'd have a fairly perfect way of dealing with true 'democracy', as it were, for media bias.