> Do you understand how compulsory licensing works? Do you really believe no indie artist has ever collected royalties on their music?
Yes, I do understand how licensing works. The RIAA collects royalties on all music, whether or not the artist is signed to one of their labels[0].
Then, the artist has to register with the RIAA (technically, SoundExchange) to get paid, and if the RIAA is in a good mood, they may decide to pay the artist. Or they may decide to keep some or all of the money they collected on behalf of the artist[1].
Again, this applies not just to artists who are signed to a major label, but to independent artists who have no association with the RIAA whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the RIAA files lawsuits on the grounds that the artists (read: the RIAA) is losing money due to filesharing, and when they receive a settlement, they pay literally none of that money to the artists they claimed were harmed, and instead spend that money on... more lawsuits[2].
> The RIAA collects royalties on all music, whether or not the artist is signed to one of their labels[0].
Whenever there's an inflammatory post like this on the Internet that implies obvious injustice, it behooves us to do a little more research. As with most such articles posted around here, there's always another side of the story. A collection of comments from Slashdot, of all places, that explains this:
Don't mistake "big music" as being the only beneficiaries of copyright law. That's simply demagoguery.