The truth is artists and their record companies still don't have a clue. They loved the tape/CD days when they could force fans to buy the whole album even though most of it was crap. Is it any wonder that before iTunes people would just rip the singles off? When an artist like Kid Rock chooses not to put songs on iTunes has still has no idea of the impact - how many digital sales did he forego, how many less albums would he have sold, and probably more key how many consumers, lacking a legal download option, just went back to file sharing? The real irony is that once he didn't put his hit All Summer Long on iTunes, a cover band did and they went as high as the #5 top selling song on the biggest music retailer in the US!

"Perhaps the only way that labels and artists will break Apple's hold on music is to bring an antitrust suit. Apple does control enough of the market to make a case."

You got antitrust backwards. Apple is a retailer; Apple is not in control.

Think about it! The consumers want singles, and Apple wants to provide them. Antitrust is supposed to help the consumers. Furthermore, antitrust suits are brought by the government.

Maybe it's time for the Justice Deptartment to bring suit against the record labels, as they are the ones in control. The labels are the ones refusing to give consumers what they want - singles.

This is a very complicated situation where things aren't always what they seem. A goodly while back the artist formerly know as Prince who became Symbol and then changed his name back to Prince appeared on the American Music Awards or the Grammys with the word "Slave" written on his cheek and no not that cheek, his face. Why would an artist of Prince's stature, creativity and sales ability do something of this nature? Generally recording artists do not own the masters to their music, the recording company does. And many times despite authoring the works they do not get 100% of the copyright. Why? Because most of them are young kids who really have no idea as to how business really works and they sign these ridiculously restrictive contracts that allow/allowed the record companies to control their destiny. Every band has their own tale of owe. Some through intelligence and sheer sales power, the Stones, the Eagles, and Led Zeppelin manage to rise above the financial din and after years of primarily making money from touring they begin to see some record sale revenue. Mick Jagger is legendary for having created tour underwriting with the help of his various advisors one I think being Prince Rupert Lowenstein and maybe Allen Klein. Most bands become stars, tour the world only to come home to $2000 dollars in their checking accounts. In short Prince, like many other artists, wanted to do what he wanted, when he wanted to do it and break the single album tour for 24 months mode. Prince, like Neil Young, incurred the wrath of the record company. Young released an electronic album that was born out of his frustration to communicate with his autistic son called "Trans" and managed to get David Geffen to sue him for releasing material that wasn't commercially viable. So much for the artist friendly "Asylum" records.

Antitrust? That depends on if this is intentional or is it the result of a convergence of a number of factors not the least of which was customer dissatisfaction with record companies on behalf of the consumer and the artist. At the beginning? No. The IPod and ITunes was a crap shoot and Tower Records was well on its way to oblivion because of illegal taping, downloading, pricing, etc. none of which was Apple's fault.

Interestingly, record companies used this exact plan back in the 50s and 60s before album sales took hold. Albums were an after thought until groups like the Moody Blues "Days of Future Passed" and Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" defined vinyl as an legitimate art form in which the songs existed in a symbiosis towards one another. Dare I forget Stevie Wonder's "Original Musicquarium" or "The Secret Life of Plants" both bold statements.

Last year a rumor broke, imagine that, a rumor about Apple, that it was going to create a record label with Jay-Z. That would've been truly bold and threatening and if I were at the helm of Apple I would've hired the best A & R people on the planet and allowed them to sign artists to exclusive contracts because Apple could have indulged their artistic flights of fancy with little risk. Allow them to throw everything against the wall and see if anything stuck.

Recently Radiohead released an album on the internet and allowed folks to pay what they wanted which really wasn't very much. If the artist is net savvy I could see more of this occurring. It is akin to what artists have done in the past which is to press their own records and sell them at shows, (MC Hammer, Joan Jett), until they had a regional hit and then the major signed them to a distribution deal. And lest we forget the Greatful Dead that didn't sell jack and allowed their fans to tape their shows most of which were always sold-out.

In the final analysis, the record companies are not filling suit because Apple is guilty of some type of illegal arrangement. By doing this, especially at this point in history, they are merely confirming how poorly and arrogantly their business was conducted in the past. This has allowed Apple to retain a natural monopoly and being good isn't against the law but of course most record companies never had that problem.

Shine on you crazy diamonds.

Beltway Greg

Bring an "antitrust suit" on what grounds?

The only "antitrust suit" that might be filed would be Apple against the Big 4 labels for cartel-like behavior in allowing DRM-free tracks in the also-ran stores, while forcing DRM tracks on Apple.

Just another anti-Apple story from the Doug McIntyre, who continues to show his ignorance with silly misplaced comments about "antitrust suit"s.

This seems slightly ridiculous, although I suppose stranger things occurred in the business world.

Music artists frequently complain these days. And, to a degree, Metallica's drummer's push on Napster was founded, of course, it was stealing, but this is just artists, trying to cover their incompetent posteriors, to make a few extra bucks.

The fact is there are a lot of artists who produce one or two notable songs, but are bind by one contract or another to produce an album for a label they signed on with. Anything forced in the artistic world cannot be good, and considering the way the music industry went, it can only be bad, or worse.

The trouble is, as it was noted by another comment here, that they simply don't create a worth while song, and it only serves the purpose of filling up the space on a cd, or other kind of album, bloating up the cost.

Personally I think pulling out of iTunes will only hurt their sales, because consumers are generally, not fond of being hassled like that.