Then there is the subject of used cd's. I told him that when he bought a used cd he may as well have made an unauthorized copy...becuase the artist does not see any of the money past the initial sale of that cd. Or that when he sells used cd's to stores he may as well be selling audience tapes because he is now making money off of someone else's music.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I can't see how that theory works. When you sell a cd you don't want, you rarely make money, but rather lose money - say you spend $20, then perhaps get back $10, you have paid out $10 for a cd which you don't even own anymore! Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got whatever money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one payoff to the artist?
The basic point behind this is: what is the artist paid for? The physical CD copy, or royalities for his intellectual property? I think the idea that it is the CD you purchase is only a vehicle which makes intellectual property tradeable in the first place; a practical consideration of how to make solid money from something as aetherical as music. For the artist to make a living, this is the crucial point. But theoretically, the artist should get paid per listener. Or per listening. With an intensity of listening experience factor. But there the question arises: should the more intense listening be more expensive since the listener gets more from the artist, or should it be cheaper as a discount price, or to prevent misuse of inattentive listening? Fritz ############################################## Fritz Feger mail@fritzfeger.de www.fritzfeger.com ##############################################