I'm surprised Shabadu hasn't mentioned this yet, but Pink Floyd has taken EMI to court over unpaid royalties.  It appears EMI is reaping big profits off digital distribution of Floyd tracks, given there's relatively no cost for distribution (compared to physical media like tapes, LPs, and CDs).  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8558480.stm
The contract was drawn up prior to the adoption of MP3's and the like.  Should distributors be forced to pony up more cash to artists just because they found a cheaper way to sell the music?
Personally, I think the difference should go to the consumer.

Huh.. well I didn't mention it because this was the first I had heard of it...

While I would love to see the difference go to the consumer, let's be honest and admit it will be going either to the artist or the company that represents them... let them hash it out together (whether through the courts or the cheaper way by just discussing things with lawyers present)... what I wonder is whether the settlement (whatever it winds up being) will set a precedent for all artists or if it will need to be resolved individually..

My guess - it will need to be resolved individually for every artist.

You'll be pleased to know Pink Floyd won.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8561963.stm
The thing is, the case was about 10 Million pounds in unpaid royalties, yet EMI was ordered to pay 40,000 pounds in "cost", whatever that means.
This second article makes it sound like the whole thing was about being able to sell Floyd's tracks individually, which the band didn't want.  That's why the judge sided with Pink Floyd, because it was clear in the contract the band wanted whole albums sold only, so as to preserve the integrity of the work, regardless of medium.
Throughout the article though, it does mention the question of royalties was another aspect to the case, but doesn't tell us the decision.
I agree with you though, Shabadu.  It will likely be every individual artist has to fight this battle, but at least the fight should be that much easier which cases like this setting the precedent.

I didn't really think it would be about money.. the band are all quite wealthy.. but some, if not all Pink Floyd albums are concept albums, so I understand them not wanting to allow single sales.  I know early in their careers, soon after they signed on with EMI (or it might have been another label back in the day, I don't recall which one was in the story I read years and years ago..) Roger Waters and Syd Barret decided to deliberately write really long tunes specifically so they couldn't be made in to singles to play on the radio... many claimed it was a foolish move, that no one would be exposed to their music, but it apparently turned out pretty good for the band