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.
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" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> 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.