This is so incoherent I don't where to begin. > On a less snappy note, I sincerely hope that these two-faced bastards Less snappy? Am I missing the irony here

This is so incoherent I don't where to begin. > On a less snappy note, I sincerely hope that these two-faced bastards Less snappy? Am I missing the irony here? If I understand correctly, the poster thinks paying for recorded music is bad. 360 degree plans? Nonsense that deserves to go out of business. But if a label can't charge for music, and obtaining revenue from other sources is also nonsensical, then pray tell, swombat, where is the money to fund promotion, recording, etc supposed to come from? Should it grow off trees? > this time by making big payola payouts to music sharing sites Err, what? It's the music sharing sites that pay the content owners for distributing their content, not vice-versa. And if you'd done at least a iota of independent research, you'd know that the majors (e.g. Warner with youtube) are unhappy with the arrangement because their revenues to date have been minuscule. > The world doesn't need Big Labels - with or without free recorded music. The funny thing is you're partially right here: with free recorded music, the world doesn't need labels (not just "Big Labels"), seeing as their raison-d'etre is the creation and monetization of recorded music. Which doesn't make the statement any less silly, paranoid, and juvenile.