----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi Bob:
> Are you saying that artists should be paid for free publicity? Isn't that what
> over-public-airwaves or Internet-delivered, is, essentially? I bet if you
asked anyone except the
> hyped and spoiled superstars, they would WANT the free publicity and would
rather have it and not be
> paid for it than force a payment structure that will get rid of the free
publicity. What should be
> required is that the no-fee version of a song be edited by the artist or
record company and may
> include less than the full track or an advertising message with the track or a
> less-than-full-quality version of the track. If a radio station wants to play
unlimited times the
> full-album-version of a track, yeah they should pay a royalty.
1) There was NEVER anything paid to record companies for radio airplay
(though there seems to be a movement to change this in the XXI Jahrhundert!)...
in fact, radio stations were given free "promo copies" of new releases,
along with printed material providing information thereon!
2) The recording industry, being totally, screamingly unaware of the
technical details as to what CAN and CAN'T be illicitly copied from
the Internet, has evidently assumed that ANY "broadcast" of one of
their copyrighted sound recordings using the Internet will allow it
to be copied and then redistributed in digital form.
3) The recording industry is currently losing money, much like a
compulsive gambler whose flight was redirected to Las Vegas with a
4) Perhaps the recording industry should consider issuing all new
releases on 78rpm shellac discs, which are much harder to copy...?!
Steven C. Barr