There are extremists on both sides, who, unsurprisingly, are among the most vocal. Just look at the anti-AGW types who start screaming about dirty hippie globaloney-worshipping libtard Gorebots the instant the word "warming" leaves one's mouth.
Where?
I grew up in the part of Texas that wouldn't vote for LBJ because he was "too liberal," for chrissakes. I now live in Southern California, the are of the country that gave us left-wing freaks like Ronald Reagan. My brother lives in Georgia, home of the Gingrich. And I'm asking you: Where are these people who scream about "dirty hippie globaloney-worshipping libtard Gorebots the instant the word 'warming' leaves one's mouth?"
Maybe it's because, in the current political climate, the mere suggestion that global warming is not caused by humans is already considered extremist?
The AC beat me to it: Nothing you listed is anything I can't get somewhere else.
Blu-Ray? It's just what I'd watch on DVD, but with a few more pixels.
PS3 games? A bunch of me-too copycat games and sequels. More pixels! More shaders! Like I really care about those mid-game.
Cell processor running Linux? You forgot the lack of driver support for the graphics hardware...and gee, for $600, I could get a Mac Mini and run Linux on it instead...with driver support! Or just use OSX. And as the AC pointed out, the Cell is a crap architecture for general purpose apps. (I'm not even sure it's that great for games.)
You know, as my Chinese S.O. never fails to point out, the Chinese have just as much freedom of speech as we do! In China, you can say anything you want to.
It's freedom after speech that's not guaranteed...
I actually get $0.6375 per download through iTunes, and the amount not only exceeds all other digital sources combined, but it even exceeds my physical CD sales.
So yeah... if you're looking for indie cred by going "wah indies can't bla bla" you're barkin' up the wrong tree.
And Jobs? No doubt in my mind he means what he says about ditching DRM. What does he gain by lying?
What happens if an indie artist signs on to a new label, and part of that deal is a transfer of exclusive rights to that artist's entire catalog?
The problem isn't technical.
And it's not like we indie artists are the ones screaming and crying about this. If you want the music of an indie artist using CD Baby for digital/physical distribution without DRM, you don't have to buy from iTunes; you can buy from any e-tailer that sells MP3's without DRM. You could even buy from me directly (if I'd get off my ass and make the files available).
As an artist, I do not give a rat's fetid poop where you get my stuff, just as long as you get it.
So it's not like DRM is somehow magically locking in the Indies who use iTunes and making us all WAAAH I'M SO UNHAPPY ABOUT EVIL APPLE WAAAAH. Not when I'm getting $0.63 per download through it, and more money through it than through all other electronic sources combined.
So if you're looking for indie cred by slamming Apple, you're not going to find it from indie artists.
Exactly. And for that matter, why the hell should Linus care what DE I ( and a great deal of people ) like to use? Just because Linus likes KDE doesn't mean Gnome is a POS.
True: Gnome is a POS because it has all the features and functionality of Windows 3.0 eighteen years later, and a fervent desire to continue limiting what the user can do.
I think Alan Cox's comment pretty much validated what ESR said, so for ESR to respond would be redundant.
ESR said he wants an OS that does what he wants it to do, rather than doing things according to a moral code. Cox said he wants an OS to do things according to a moral code, even if it means he's not able to do some things you want to do.
They agree that they disagree. What more is there to say?
I couldn't tell; I don't know who you are, and sarcasm is hard to detect over print. I apologize for not recognizing you were joking.
Unfortunately, it looks to me as if the US has decided that, first having turned into a resource-consumer, then having farmed out its manufacturing, currently farming out its development and even research, it's going to make its economic mark as an IP shark. If you're going to be an IP shark, you've got to be aggressive and go after IP in every way in every place. Unfortunately in that light, my silly comment starts to look disgustingly serious.
That can happen, and that's certainly the short-term trend. Historically, such short-term trends have not maintained themselves. We still have a university system that attracts the best and brightest of the world, and term limits on our presidential administrations. And, I have faith in this country's youth, because they seem to be as suspicious of well-intentioned power grabs as any I've ever seen, having made it to adulthood while witnessing just such a power grab.
I think we'll be all right for at least the next generation.
But buying the same song twice (or even more) is GOOD. It shows up as profit, and helps move the economy. It drives you to work more/harder. Both show up as tax revenue.
The government taxes corporate profits no matter which company gets it, from my little home-brew CD on up to the RIAA, so it is unaffected by increased IIPA member company profits. The federal government does not give a crap who gets the income.
The Federal government in the USA does not levy sales tax, so there is no direct relationship between increased consumer spending and increased government revenues.
The federal government is concerned about maintaining the US' edge in science and industry over the rest of the world (and ensuring that laws they draft are followed). That's why it's vital to show lawmakers that current copyright legislation not only fails to give US content-distribution companies an edge, but how it actually puts us at a disadvantage in scientific progress, which has been the biggest advantage the USA has had over the rest of the world since WW2 and the European "Brain Drain." These other issues you outline only mean something if they result in us increasing our industrial, scientific and cultural advantages.
"So now it's the US pushing a stupid agenda instead of Europe? Sounds more like the European copyright snowball they launched at the top of the hill is now an an avalanche they can't control."
Actually, it's an interesting situation.
I got elected to the Board of Directors of my homeowner's association last Fall, and a few BOD meetings later, I've discovered that such organizations have an interesting problem: Supposedly the employees answer to the Board, but sometimes that relationship ends up getting reversed.
There are very good reasons why this happens. Most Board members cannot afford to spend time monitoring day-to-day activities. They also usually lack knowledge in building maintenance and landscaping that the property manager should have. And last, there's no continuity; there are term limits for board members, so the property manager is required to put things in a historical context. So to some extent, some deference to the property manager's knowledge is essential. However, if it gets to the point where the BOD is unable to hold the Property Manager accountable, something's gone wrong.
And this can happen without a single bribe, without a single dime changing hands; it happens simply because the people in power not only expect someone to be more knowledgable, but also because they naively assume he has the same best interests in benefitting the whole as they do. Worse, once circumstances like these occur, it is very difficult to reverse, as the "expert" is even looked to to recommend replacements for committee members.
Why do I bring this up? It was this line from TFA:
The report frequently serves as a blueprint for the US Trade Representative's Section 301 Report, a government-mandated annual report that carries the threat of trade barriers for countries that fail to meet the US standard of IP protection.
That line right there is what should be throwing up all kinds of red flags if you're a US citizen Not only have our elected representatives assumed that their chosen expert has the interests of the entire country in mind as they do, but they've deferred enough power to the expert to the point where they no longer have any authority on the issue. This may have happened years before anyone currently on the right committee got elected and without a single bribe or "campaign contribution" -- none of that is necessary for this to occur.
What needs to happen is for those committee members involved to get prodded by their constituents: "Hey you, you need to take the reins of this horse instead of letting it munch on the thistle all the time." In order to do that, they need a vision and a direction.
What direction should copyright be going in? Show Congressmen/women how our current IP legislation prevents research into cures for diseases due to fears over patent lawsuits or how the DMCA has been used to prevent publication of academic research. Show them how DRM has failed to have any effect on piracy, and yet how it's been used to force people to buy the same songs twice. And then show them how things ought to be, with you being able to buy music and use it anywhere, with researchers able to publish their results, with drug companies able to work on any medication they deem appropriate without the fear of a lawsuit.
KDE started out with Qt before Qt was GPL because, as they claim (and having used Qt, I agree), "Qt is the best GUI toolkit available for the UNIX platform."
I don't think it's that simple. People accept whatever default the distro gives them as "what Linux looks like," and Gnome has a foothold due to the licensing issues over Qt.
The problem is, long after the licensing issues with Qt have gone, and while Gnome continues to be the least functional GUI available for any modern desktop OS (a badge the Gnome community appears to wear with pride), no one has switched.
I'm as frustrated as Torvalds is with it, because it's not enough to just use KDE when given the chance. Look at the utter disregard the Ubuntu project has for Kubuntu; the system configuration dialogs last time I used it (Breezy Badger) were utterly broken and unusable -- and I've heard from some Edgy Eft users that it still sucks. There's a post right above here yapping about how awful slow Kubuntu is compared with Debian.
KDE's the only desktop that does things right. Konqueror is gorgeous, and easily rivals my Mac for usability and power.
It's because Kubuntu is the ghetto wasteland of the Ubuntu distribution. It was enough to get me to switch back to Fedora, where while KDE isn't the default, it isn't broken.
Remember TIE Fighter, when you get to go clear a minefield in an unshielded craft... and then your wingmen turn on you? And you while you run for your life, you have to also identify who's on board that shuttle heading towards the Calamari Cruiser?
If you played it, you remember it. And it might even be one of your favorite gaming moments of all time.
I can think of a couple of other great dramatic reversals:
Ultima VI, when you realize that the Gargoyles aren't evil, but are after you because you're destroying their world.
Starflight, when you realize why stars are going nova.
Re:Does it matter?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The answer to your question is in TFA:
Jones also has criticized some journalists who cover the lawsuits, including this reporter, accusing them of being biased in favor of SCO.
I love reading Groklaw, and have learned a ton about the legal process in the bargain. The best articles I've found are the ones with the dullest titles: "SCO's motion to reconsider second part of the ruling with the..." These are the ones where PJ says, "OK, here's where the judge is being asked by the lawyers according to this procedure which was developed to make sure that..." yadda yadda. That's when I learn the most. I also enjoy reading her triumphant gloating whenever IBM snags a victory, which has been often.
When the articles have provocative titles, it's typically her going on a rant. While I agree with much (if not all) of what she says on these rants, they're not typically very educational -- to me. She's preaching to the choir. So I don't get as much out of it. I kind of wish she wouldn't write these, and this article in Forbes is what happens when you mix in the bad with the good like this. She's said some really nasty things about Forbes. It isn't right for Forbes to stoop to -- well, the level she accuses them of being on anyway -- but if she could hold off on the name-calling, she probably doesn't draw their ire in such a personal attack piece.
But then, given Forbes' record, they probably would do this, anyway, so what do I know? (Expect to see a piece attacking Slashdot poster Rimbo soon.)
DVD Jon says nothing that wasn't said on Slashdot already when Jobs' essay first went up, and The Economist just restates what Jobs said, merely suggesting that this is a "change of tack" and "transparently self-serving."
That's true, and those numbers matter for short-run prints like this.
So if I spend 80 hours "studio time" on this CD (which is a decent amount of time -- 2 work weeks' worth; Van Halen's first two albums took about that long) and charge myself $25 per hour, that'll run up to... $2000. For a run of 100 CD's, that's $20 per CD amortized.
Um, yeah. Economies of scale.
For 1000 CD's, that's $2 per CD amortized. Perfectly reasonable; I can sell 'em at $11.38 and make a handy $2/CD profit still -- far more than I'd ever get through the big labels.
For 10,000 CD's... that's not even worth talking about. $0.20. Whoopee.
But on the flip side, we're not including income from digital distribution, which has been significant. Also, I do get to sell these on my own (CD Baby's non-exclusive), and I get to keep $2 per CD every time I do that.
What's more, the business model of the indie band is usually to use the recording as promotional tools to sell the live show. Making money off of the recording is just gravy. Being able to do so is, in fact, a relatively abnormal blip in the way the system worked when one could add significant value to a recording, starting from the point when high-quality analog/processed recordings were first made possible in the late 60's, and ending at the point when high-quality digital recordings became cheap enough for a guy to make in his apartment in his spare time (like me!) in the late 90's. Throughout the rest of history, the goal was to sell live performances and sheet music for other performers.
There was little value in recordings before then, because they sounded like shit; there's little value now, because ANYONE can make a recording sound good. Being able to mic drums properly, mix to tape, and all those amazing skills are becoming a lost art.
I think that's true, or at least it was a few years ago.
With regular cycles, the big labels will start signing independent bands that already have established fan-bases and the like, bands they don't need to "develop." They do this for two reasons. One, it saves them the cost of "developing" talent. (I was considering putting that last word in quotes as well.)
But two, it helps them to EEE... Embrace, Extend and Extinguish a new genre. The big labels want to define what the genres are. If a large number of bands have a large following, they have to sign them, give them a label, and start producing cookie-cutter versions of those bands; the original bands and fans have loyalty to their music, not to the record company, so this is necessary to ensure the vendor lock-in they require to maintain their oligopoly.
Although there's a low barrier to entry to buying indie artists' music, there's also no reason to buy just one band's songs, so it's not enough for the big labels to sign just the popular artists. They have to sign most of the artists. This is the business case that cost-justifies 90% of their artists not making money, and why they must produce cookie-cutter bands: So that if you want to buy an album from a given artist in a genre, there's a greater than 50% chance it's a big label artist.
This also results in turning the genre into muddy water. There was a time when the hair bands of the 80's were not all cliched and cheesy, but the efforts of the big studios made them that way, even to the point where people look back at legit bands like Tesla and Van Halen and dump them into the same category as Enuff Z'Enuff or Winger.
Seriously... why is it today that people remember Bon Jovi fondly, but piss on Def Leppard? Def Leppard was legit and original. Bon Jovi, though they had great songwriting, was a cookie-cutter big-label copycat. Bon Jovi was the eternal opening act for the real big acts coming through town. In fact, the moment Bon Jovi was topping the charts and headlining shows was really the point in time when I realized that the corps had taken control, and that it was all downhill after that. (Some would point to an even earlier point, to when Dave left Van Halen.)
OK, enough whining about the lost glory days of hair metal... but the same thing happened with grunge and with hip-hop. There hasn't been a new genre embraced by the labels since then. (I'd say, "hooray for electronic music," but most electronic music is really, really bad. Including mine. There's a reason the big labels barely bothered with it beyond pushing Moby.)
Slashdot Mirror
Where?
I grew up in the part of Texas that wouldn't vote for LBJ because he was "too liberal," for chrissakes. I now live in Southern California, the are of the country that gave us left-wing freaks like Ronald Reagan. My brother lives in Georgia, home of the Gingrich. And I'm asking you: Where are these people who scream about "dirty hippie globaloney-worshipping libtard Gorebots the instant the word 'warming' leaves one's mouth?"
Maybe it's because, in the current political climate, the mere suggestion that global warming is not caused by humans is already considered extremist?
I am so not surprised from that. I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from lack of surprise.
As a wise man once told me, "Better to be the bad guy at the beginning than to be the bad guy at the end."
The AC beat me to it: Nothing you listed is anything I can't get somewhere else.
Blu-Ray? It's just what I'd watch on DVD, but with a few more pixels.
PS3 games? A bunch of me-too copycat games and sequels. More pixels! More shaders! Like I really care about those mid-game.
Cell processor running Linux? You forgot the lack of driver support for the graphics hardware...and gee, for $600, I could get a Mac Mini and run Linux on it instead...with driver support! Or just use OSX. And as the AC pointed out, the Cell is a crap architecture for general purpose apps. (I'm not even sure it's that great for games.)
Six Hundred Dollars.
Is there anything here that you can't get for less than $600 elsewhere?
Six. Hundred. Dollars.
Although the lack of games and poor online support and other issues were problems, problem #1 is still there.
You know, as my Chinese S.O. never fails to point out, the Chinese have just as much freedom of speech as we do! In China, you can say anything you want to.
It's freedom after speech that's not guaranteed...
I actually get $0.6375 per download through iTunes, and the amount not only exceeds all other digital sources combined, but it even exceeds my physical CD sales.
So yeah... if you're looking for indie cred by going "wah indies can't bla bla" you're barkin' up the wrong tree.
And Jobs? No doubt in my mind he means what he says about ditching DRM. What does he gain by lying?
What happens if an indie artist signs on to a new label, and part of that deal is a transfer of exclusive rights to that artist's entire catalog?
The problem isn't technical.
And it's not like we indie artists are the ones screaming and crying about this. If you want the music of an indie artist using CD Baby for digital/physical distribution without DRM, you don't have to buy from iTunes; you can buy from any e-tailer that sells MP3's without DRM. You could even buy from me directly (if I'd get off my ass and make the files available).
As an artist, I do not give a rat's fetid poop where you get my stuff, just as long as you get it.
So it's not like DRM is somehow magically locking in the Indies who use iTunes and making us all WAAAH I'M SO UNHAPPY ABOUT EVIL APPLE WAAAAH. Not when I'm getting $0.63 per download through it, and more money through it than through all other electronic sources combined.
So if you're looking for indie cred by slamming Apple, you're not going to find it from indie artists.
True: Gnome is a POS because it has all the features and functionality of Windows 3.0 eighteen years later, and a fervent desire to continue limiting what the user can do.
I think Alan Cox's comment pretty much validated what ESR said, so for ESR to respond would be redundant.
ESR said he wants an OS that does what he wants it to do, rather than doing things according to a moral code. Cox said he wants an OS to do things according to a moral code, even if it means he's not able to do some things you want to do.
They agree that they disagree. What more is there to say?
WHAT?!?!?!?!
She IS?!?!?!
Oh no... my dreams... they're shattered... my hopes... all gone...
faints
That can happen, and that's certainly the short-term trend. Historically, such short-term trends have not maintained themselves. We still have a university system that attracts the best and brightest of the world, and term limits on our presidential administrations. And, I have faith in this country's youth, because they seem to be as suspicious of well-intentioned power grabs as any I've ever seen, having made it to adulthood while witnessing just such a power grab.
I think we'll be all right for at least the next generation.
The federal government is concerned about maintaining the US' edge in science and industry over the rest of the world (and ensuring that laws they draft are followed). That's why it's vital to show lawmakers that current copyright legislation not only fails to give US content-distribution companies an edge, but how it actually puts us at a disadvantage in scientific progress, which has been the biggest advantage the USA has had over the rest of the world since WW2 and the European "Brain Drain." These other issues you outline only mean something if they result in us increasing our industrial, scientific and cultural advantages.
Actually, it's an interesting situation.
I got elected to the Board of Directors of my homeowner's association last Fall, and a few BOD meetings later, I've discovered that such organizations have an interesting problem: Supposedly the employees answer to the Board, but sometimes that relationship ends up getting reversed.
There are very good reasons why this happens. Most Board members cannot afford to spend time monitoring day-to-day activities. They also usually lack knowledge in building maintenance and landscaping that the property manager should have. And last, there's no continuity; there are term limits for board members, so the property manager is required to put things in a historical context. So to some extent, some deference to the property manager's knowledge is essential. However, if it gets to the point where the BOD is unable to hold the Property Manager accountable, something's gone wrong.
And this can happen without a single bribe, without a single dime changing hands; it happens simply because the people in power not only expect someone to be more knowledgable, but also because they naively assume he has the same best interests in benefitting the whole as they do. Worse, once circumstances like these occur, it is very difficult to reverse, as the "expert" is even looked to to recommend replacements for committee members.
Why do I bring this up? It was this line from TFA:
That line right there is what should be throwing up all kinds of red flags if you're a US citizen Not only have our elected representatives assumed that their chosen expert has the interests of the entire country in mind as they do, but they've deferred enough power to the expert to the point where they no longer have any authority on the issue. This may have happened years before anyone currently on the right committee got elected and without a single bribe or "campaign contribution" -- none of that is necessary for this to occur.
What needs to happen is for those committee members involved to get prodded by their constituents: "Hey you, you need to take the reins of this horse instead of letting it munch on the thistle all the time." In order to do that, they need a vision and a direction.
What direction should copyright be going in? Show Congressmen/women how our current IP legislation prevents research into cures for diseases due to fears over patent lawsuits or how the DMCA has been used to prevent publication of academic research. Show them how DRM has failed to have any effect on piracy, and yet how it's been used to force people to buy the same songs twice. And then show them how things ought to be, with you being able to buy music and use it anywhere, with researchers able to publish their results, with drug companies able to work on any medication they deem appropriate without the fear of a lawsuit.
You mean... the movies aren't real???
The AC answered it perfectly. For some bizarre reason the mods didn't see his post. But basically, once upon a time, Qt's licensing was not GPL.
KDE has the full history here.
KDE started out with Qt before Qt was GPL because, as they claim (and having used Qt, I agree), "Qt is the best GUI toolkit available for the UNIX platform."
I'm astonished that your reply hasn't been modded up to about +6 for being informative, insightful and hilarious at the same time.
I don't think it's that simple. People accept whatever default the distro gives them as "what Linux looks like," and Gnome has a foothold due to the licensing issues over Qt.
The problem is, long after the licensing issues with Qt have gone, and while Gnome continues to be the least functional GUI available for any modern desktop OS (a badge the Gnome community appears to wear with pride), no one has switched.
I'm as frustrated as Torvalds is with it, because it's not enough to just use KDE when given the chance. Look at the utter disregard the Ubuntu project has for Kubuntu; the system configuration dialogs last time I used it (Breezy Badger) were utterly broken and unusable -- and I've heard from some Edgy Eft users that it still sucks. There's a post right above here yapping about how awful slow Kubuntu is compared with Debian.
KDE's the only desktop that does things right. Konqueror is gorgeous, and easily rivals my Mac for usability and power.
It's because Kubuntu is the ghetto wasteland of the Ubuntu distribution. It was enough to get me to switch back to Fedora, where while KDE isn't the default, it isn't broken.
Remember TIE Fighter, when you get to go clear a minefield in an unshielded craft... and then your wingmen turn on you? And you while you run for your life, you have to also identify who's on board that shuttle heading towards the Calamari Cruiser?
If you played it, you remember it. And it might even be one of your favorite gaming moments of all time.
I can think of a couple of other great dramatic reversals:
Ultima VI, when you realize that the Gargoyles aren't evil, but are after you because you're destroying their world.
Starflight, when you realize why stars are going nova.
I love reading Groklaw, and have learned a ton about the legal process in the bargain. The best articles I've found are the ones with the dullest titles: "SCO's motion to reconsider second part of the ruling with the..." These are the ones where PJ says, "OK, here's where the judge is being asked by the lawyers according to this procedure which was developed to make sure that..." yadda yadda. That's when I learn the most. I also enjoy reading her triumphant gloating whenever IBM snags a victory, which has been often.
When the articles have provocative titles, it's typically her going on a rant. While I agree with much (if not all) of what she says on these rants, they're not typically very educational -- to me. She's preaching to the choir. So I don't get as much out of it. I kind of wish she wouldn't write these, and this article in Forbes is what happens when you mix in the bad with the good like this. She's said some really nasty things about Forbes. It isn't right for Forbes to stoop to -- well, the level she accuses them of being on anyway -- but if she could hold off on the name-calling, she probably doesn't draw their ire in such a personal attack piece.
But then, given Forbes' record, they probably would do this, anyway, so what do I know? (Expect to see a piece attacking Slashdot poster Rimbo soon.)
Ferrari makes cars with a back seat?
DVD Jon says nothing that wasn't said on Slashdot already when Jobs' essay first went up, and The Economist just restates what Jobs said, merely suggesting that this is a "change of tack" and "transparently self-serving."
There is no news here.
That's true, and those numbers matter for short-run prints like this.
So if I spend 80 hours "studio time" on this CD (which is a decent amount of time -- 2 work weeks' worth; Van Halen's first two albums took about that long) and charge myself $25 per hour, that'll run up to... $2000. For a run of 100 CD's, that's $20 per CD amortized.
Um, yeah. Economies of scale.
For 1000 CD's, that's $2 per CD amortized. Perfectly reasonable; I can sell 'em at $11.38 and make a handy $2/CD profit still -- far more than I'd ever get through the big labels.
For 10,000 CD's... that's not even worth talking about. $0.20. Whoopee.
But on the flip side, we're not including income from digital distribution, which has been significant. Also, I do get to sell these on my own (CD Baby's non-exclusive), and I get to keep $2 per CD every time I do that.
What's more, the business model of the indie band is usually to use the recording as promotional tools to sell the live show. Making money off of the recording is just gravy. Being able to do so is, in fact, a relatively abnormal blip in the way the system worked when one could add significant value to a recording, starting from the point when high-quality analog/processed recordings were first made possible in the late 60's, and ending at the point when high-quality digital recordings became cheap enough for a guy to make in his apartment in his spare time (like me!) in the late 90's. Throughout the rest of history, the goal was to sell live performances and sheet music for other performers.
There was little value in recordings before then, because they sounded like shit; there's little value now, because ANYONE can make a recording sound good. Being able to mic drums properly, mix to tape, and all those amazing skills are becoming a lost art.
I think that's true, or at least it was a few years ago.
With regular cycles, the big labels will start signing independent bands that already have established fan-bases and the like, bands they don't need to "develop." They do this for two reasons. One, it saves them the cost of "developing" talent. (I was considering putting that last word in quotes as well.)
But two, it helps them to EEE... Embrace, Extend and Extinguish a new genre. The big labels want to define what the genres are. If a large number of bands have a large following, they have to sign them, give them a label, and start producing cookie-cutter versions of those bands; the original bands and fans have loyalty to their music, not to the record company, so this is necessary to ensure the vendor lock-in they require to maintain their oligopoly.
Although there's a low barrier to entry to buying indie artists' music, there's also no reason to buy just one band's songs, so it's not enough for the big labels to sign just the popular artists. They have to sign most of the artists. This is the business case that cost-justifies 90% of their artists not making money, and why they must produce cookie-cutter bands: So that if you want to buy an album from a given artist in a genre, there's a greater than 50% chance it's a big label artist.
This also results in turning the genre into muddy water. There was a time when the hair bands of the 80's were not all cliched and cheesy, but the efforts of the big studios made them that way, even to the point where people look back at legit bands like Tesla and Van Halen and dump them into the same category as Enuff Z'Enuff or Winger.
Seriously... why is it today that people remember Bon Jovi fondly, but piss on Def Leppard? Def Leppard was legit and original. Bon Jovi, though they had great songwriting, was a cookie-cutter big-label copycat. Bon Jovi was the eternal opening act for the real big acts coming through town. In fact, the moment Bon Jovi was topping the charts and headlining shows was really the point in time when I realized that the corps had taken control, and that it was all downhill after that. (Some would point to an even earlier point, to when Dave left Van Halen.)
OK, enough whining about the lost glory days of hair metal... but the same thing happened with grunge and with hip-hop. There hasn't been a new genre embraced by the labels since then. (I'd say, "hooray for electronic music," but most electronic music is really, really bad. Including mine. There's a reason the big labels barely bothered with it beyond pushing Moby.)