"they certainly aren't going to be charging 16.99$ for 12 tracks ... The artists are going to make (I would think) much more money with sticking with RIAA's monopoly..."

Right on the first count, wrong on the second, I think... They'll be charging $2.00 for a song, not $16.99 for an album.... but... the artist will be pocketing more from that $2.00 song (like, about $2.00) than the record label is giving him for his $16.99 album (like, penneys or dimes.)

Admittedly, the artist won't be getting the promotion provided by the record companies.... but a great deal of that promotion can be done by the artist himself -- primarily, contacting radio stations, sending them demos, coaxing airplay out of program directors. Established artists in particular can benefit from direct distribution, as their reputation will give them considerable self promotion right from the start. I mean, would you hesitate to risk $2.00 on a song you had never heard by (insert your favorite artist name here...) ? I'd take the chance...

The artist will make more money selling 100,000 MP3's than he'll make selling three times that many albums. Tfabris is right -- we're riding the crest of a wave of change that will make today's music distribution business obsolete in just a few years.

tanstaafl.

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"