OK. Napster's wrong. I'm the Antichrist for downloading "Cocaine Lil" from an old compilation CD online that didn't even have an artist named. I'll accept that, even if I have yet to find it anywhere that I could buy it.

The idea that I most like - and oddly, an idea that the major labels fight tooth and nail - is a 'pay to download' or subscription service for their back catalogue.

Yes, it would be limited in scope. Chances are, it would only be the serious old music junkies and researchers.

However, it would also be low overhead. One search routine and already existing sales software would cover the entire software end of it, and most major labels have already converted most or all of their back catalogues to digital. Even without it, the limited start up cost would doubtless be rewarded by the people who wish to get the recordings that are out of circulation. Heck, do the "MP3.com" thing and offer entire CDs from the back collection. I'd be willing to imagine they could make a pretty penny from having Bessie Smith's earliest recordings available on an 'as requested' basis.

A service like this would also (FINALLY) give them something they could take the high ground over. The legitimate complaints from Napster (and other) users that they're stifling out-of-print releases would be silenced. With the decreased overhead, they would (hopefully) be able to actually route money to the artists or estates of the artists still protected by copyright. Plus, it would be a handy little revenue stream.

The only major disadvantage that I can see to the record labels is that it takes the control over what their PR execs feel the public needs to be conditioned to away to a degree.

However, to me, this plan makes sense. That alone probably dooms it.

M