Holy crap the RIAA is getting crazy. First they go after Napster and take them down. Then they go after all the other Peer-to-peer networks.
Then they decide, "Who else has money that we can sue?" so they go after students and mothers and family's that are downloading music.
Now they go down their checklist... "Ok, lets see... Family's, check, children, check, application developers, check, web hosting companies, check,... who is left that we haven't sued... I HAVE IT. Restaurants." That's right a Fresno restaurant is being sued becaused they were playing music over the loudspeakers in the restaurant that was copyrighted.
B-M-I says damages could reach 750 dollars per song. Eating and drinking establishments typically pay around $600 a year for a license to play BMI-represented songs. Why would you pay? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Why doesn't BMI pay the owners to play their music in order to get more exposure for their artists? Restaurants charge people for the food and service. They don't charge you to come in and listen to what they have playing on the speaker system.
As an up-and-coming artist, would you not give away demo's or pay to get some airplay for your songs? Half the restaurants that I know of the staff just brings in their own cd collections and throws them on but they are still buying the cd's.
Also since the creation of Itunes, I have heard that music has tripled annual profits. This is according to an article in the Financial Times.
I can't wait until my generation starts running country's around the world... prepare for change.