"Better by far to have each band set up their own website, and allow people to buy DRM-free music from them directly. " That's being done already isn't it? For example Radiohead, Peter Gabriel, etc. etc. And what about those who download and then share the files with their friends etc rather than encouraging people to pay? Yes I think there is a market for direct selling but there as to be a tax on the internet to compensate artists for piracy. Tracks shouldn't be DRM but they should be "watermarked" cleverly with something like a unique number that identifies the original purchaser to discourage copying - the copies can be traced back - something that unprotected offerings on iTunes+ does already I believe. And I also think that there can still be record companies. Why? Because of their marketing experience. Sometimes bands need to be managed and marketed correctly; they cannot do all this by themselves. Record companies can know the optimum time to release a track with their marketing intelligence. Sure they can get it wrong and sure they've quite rightly had some bad press in the past regarding apparently controversial contracts (e.g. George Michael vs Sony (Columbia) but they can get it right sometimes. In actual fact a record company is a bank - providing advances, a marketing and business management company. And some bands choose not to use the traditional record company and instead use the resources of a consumer brand e.g. Pepsi or Toyota. And why not - it's a romantic an naive person to think that artists shouldn't be rewarded. With an internet tax, all artists could get some reward, allowing lesser known to flourish through a slice of the funds going to serendipity that the BBC does quite well now but on the back of an unfair licence fee tax.