You do not get it. If you forget about the tiny proportion of superstars who
are far too rich, no artist has *ever* made any income from selling records.
In the case of music, the average percentage that used to go to artist is
something like 2%. That is 15-20% if the artist is a superstar and 0% if she
is not! The percentage is even lower for files sold online. Buying records is
not supporting artists. The copyright law is not in the interest of the
artists!
Almost all artists who live from their arts have done so through live
performances. Be it before Napster or after it. In fact Napster (and, more
generally, the Internet) have made them richer! Because it has helped them
get some fame, hence more spectators at their live performances, hence more
income. And it turns out it is true for all arts. That is what the NY Times
reported. That is what any independent study (i.e., not funded by Universal &
co.) have concluded on in the past 10 years or so.
Now if you care about Britney Spears not being able to afford another $100
million house... well, I don't!
