[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Urgent Message From SaveNetRadio



Looks like the net radio people and nameless hoards of "listeners" might have their day for now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/business/14music.html

Obvious to me: there's money to be made all around and this whole fight is kind of like dancing on the Titanic deck given the state of the music business. Also obvious to me: the "demand" that net broadcasters "limit listeners' abilities to store the files on their computers" is an impossible and dumb request. A smart negotiator doesn't inflame a negotiation by asking for something he knows well the other party cannot ever, under any circumstances, deliver.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "phillip holmes" <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Urgent Message From SaveNetRadio



I, for one, purchase music I hear on internet radio. None of the stuff I find interesting is from a major label. I wouldn't hear it on a Clear Channel station. This whole thing could do a big disservice to independent labels and artists if it serves to scare people out of broadcasting. Let's face it: over the air radio is a wasteland of crap. They don't play interesting music. They don't play music from independent labels. They have horrible sound. They're squeezing the signal to fit in "HD channels".......HD? That supposedly means High Definition. What it really means is horrible doo-doo. The only place to find decent new music is on the internet or at a good record shop.
Phillip


Tom Fine wrote:
Not as obvious to me: what percent of royalties paid go to the original artists and what percent go to Big Music companies? Just to be clear, I think a copyright owner should be paid for their copyright, but I'm curious because for an artist, there is probably a very big bite-back factor here in that if playing their music is priced out of the market, they lose vital exposure and marketing and I don't see any BM companies in a financially healthy position (by their own accouts) to step up and take on the burden of paying for exposure and marketing.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "seva" <seva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Urgent Message From SaveNetRadio


obvious to me: i don't hear artists complaining one bit about getting more royalties.

also obvious: to hear complaints only from the net radio people, who are --understandably-- worried about fiscal situations, whether legally compliant or not.





[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]