I know you do not know me, but who is this guy?

He's getting 1 cent per song from EMI, it won't 'affect Morrison's own fortunes' a bit.

Many aren't renewing licensing agreements, but that doesn't mean their content will disappear from iTunes. It just means that they COULD take it off iTunes if they wanted to at any time without repercussion.

It amazes me that artists don't get the advantage of having your music available online to be discovered by younger generations. If he doesn't renew, he'll lose the chance at letting his music be heard and discovered by a new generation of listeners. Oh well. Rarely do artist make money on music sales, it's in performance fees. The more fans the better. I don't see the harm in keeping your music available online even if you're not making much money. What does it hurt?

Well, I guess if you have enough money that you don't care that you're alienating yourself from what is quickly becoming the majority of potential purchasers, then go ahead. Or, maybe this guy hasn't actually tried to buy a CD lately, because someone needs to let him know that record stores are dropping like flies—especially the ones that carry Van Morrison records.

Really though, who cares? The writing is on the wall. Digital music sales are the way of the future. If the record industry as a whole can't make that trend go away by ignoring it, I'm willing to bet that one (old) artist can't do it by himself...

And typical non-artist. How many times does everyone rip the RIAA for taking control and money from the artists. But when an artist wants to exercise their rights, you blast them as well.

Basically, you all don't care one whit about any artist. You just want what you want, and that's it. "Vision"? Bah! Just a buzz word for a money grab or something.

Heaven forbid a musician thinks of their albums as the work, and buying just a song would be like buying just Act II Scene I from "Othello", or watching just the 15th scene in "The Godfather". And just give me the middle section of the "Last Supper." Who needs the whole thing?

Hey, as an artist it's 100% his business if he doesn't want his music online (or just not on iTMS). No complaints from me, and I'd be far more insulted if EMI tried to strongarm him into it (though were I them, I would).

That said, this does seem remarkably shortsighted; the majority of his current fans might be buying physical albums, but the next generation won't, and if it's not "out there" somewhere, there won't BE a next generation of his fans.

Just kind of unfortunate.

Now, if he were saying he doesn't like the a la carte iTMS model and was coming up with an alternate way to distribute his music digitally in "unedited" album form, then that would be an entirely different game.

Interesting. I've never bought one of his LPs or CDs, but I DID buy a song of his on iTunes....

We're not moving back to CDs and vinyl, no matter what some people think is the profit or quality...period. Embrace the new technology, or dry up with your 70's-80's made fortune in retirement.

testudo, you bring the same lame arguments as some of the artists who didn't want to sell their music song-by-song online, because "it would rip apart the unity of the album to sell the songs out of context". Who said that again, Red Hot Chili Peppers? Metallica?

Doesn't matter, because it's a whole lot of BS anyway. Because the same artists who make statements like the above are the ones who release SINGLES and allow them to be played on the radio, they produce VIDEOS to be played on MTV and elsewhere. Context? Album? Unity? Yeah, right.

And don't get me started on "Greatest Hits" compilations...

PS: Your comparison with movies etc. is pretty far fetched, but nice try.