Out of spite? I don't think that's particularly likely. This has been an interesting thread because it has, in some respects, come full circle. The only artists who can even theoretically make anything from profit participation are, for the most part, the same top-40 artists that put out the "crap" that everyone on the list seems to despise. The reality is that in the vast majority of cases it is only when an artist "wins the lottery" with a commercial success that all the bitching and moaning about profits and accounting begins, although the cover story will always be that they're trying to help the "little guy". That's courage for you. The record and movie businesses both operate on "blockbuster" economics. The vast majority of what is put out loses money, and the few titles that hit it big make up for all the losers which don't recoup their advances. When you read about this issue in the media all you ever hear is the "artist" position, and the record companies never attempt to defend themselves. If you've ever worked for a big company, you know the reason already. Big companies, as a matter of policy, almost never discuss the details of their disputes in the press, other than to say generalized things such as "we will appeal this unjust verdict." With only one side yakking about their grievances in public, that's what gets published, and that's all you hear. If the record companies were really cheating artists to the extent some seem to believe, they would be having their hats handed to them by juries everywhere. It isn't happening, and it isn't for the lack of a plaintiff's attorneys in Los Angeles. If there were cases to be had in the courts, they would be there. Draw your own conclusions from the fact that they aren't. What's left is a lot of subjective talk about relative bargaining strength, an issue the artist are trying to win the American way -- through lobbying and legislation.