P2P's and the music industry Part 2

So I don't think Lars Ulrich was completely correct in speaking out against P2P's. But I also don't think it is right for record companies to be taking so much money from bands or artists either. If Lars would have said "I think that record companies should give a larger percentage of the profit of albums to the artist, because without the artist, the record company wouldn't be getting any money at all. And if the record companies decide to take my advice, and give a large portion of album sales back to the artist, I would highly discourage the use of P2P's because with this new system, you would be cheating the artist, and not giving them the respects they deserve for the hard work they have done that you are enjoying in your headphones."

A statement like this makes perfect sense to me, but with the current system, it looks like Lars was just looking out for Lars.

Indy Media does seem to be one way of dealing with this problem. With Indy media, most all of the profit from an album would go back to the artist, which would solve the problem of big studios taking most of the profit. The downside is that an Indy artist can't get nearly as much promotion as they could with a huge studio. So some of the benefits of Indy Media include getting most of the profit from your work, having much more control over your project, and having much more of a sense of artistic moral integrity. The downside is, you might be fantastic, and have a great sense of artistic moral integrity, but have to wait tables the rest of your life because not enough people know about your album or your live shows for you to get any profits anyway. Not that you wouldn't have a blast creating the music that YOU want to though. Just might not be able to make a living off of it.