long time reader first time poster:

we'll I was forwarded a copy of Brian's thoughtful piece about the record labels getting in bed with MySpace Music. In the spirit of full disclosure I am a fulltime musician and composer - meaning I create music [content] to feed my family.

IN this new arrangment that you reveal here I see where the labels will be collecting revenue for what they actually own rights to through a revenue sharing scheme in an attempt to get money for licensing performance. [PRO] Brian brings up a concern that somehow the indie artist will not be treated fairly by the labels who, by all measure don't treat their existing roster very well. Well that begs the question: why should they? Not to be flippant but it's not their deal, anymore than it's mine to pay your light bill. The artists - as they are - on these labels are supposed to be getting revenue for broadcast play and if MySpace won't pay it when the Genie is out of the Bottle - then they either get shut down - a'la napster - or they have to come up with a way to pay the bill. Bringing us to: Who's looking out for the multitude of little-guy-indie artists that make up the lion's share of the content on MySpace Music? No one. Why? Cause they want it that way. Free to all who come there. If you give it away - uh,. . it's given away, and no one - partial label owner or not - is gong to ever give you a dime for it. You can't have it both ways. not to mention, as one of us put it:
"I am a speck of sand in the bottom of the big lake.
I wonder how anyone can sell anything with so much free music out there."

You can't. But imagine that if you ARE with a label? They actually have just come up with a way a grabbing a little revenue from advertising - like radio - that may in fact find it's way back to the artist. You have to make your own best deal and then live with it.

IMHO