Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Danger Will Robinson!!!!


Recommended Posts

Big Biz is trying to wrap up Web radio for itself. They have some committee called C.A.R.P. recommending that webcasters pay [i]double[/i] the going royalty rate. If they get their way the same handful of corporations that control the airwaves will grab up internet radio. As usual,they're getting support from our freedom-loving friends of small business and the common man...that would be the U.S. congress. Pretty soon if you want your music heard by anybody you'll have to invite them over to your house. Go to http://www.radioio.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/000002.html find out more. later, Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Man that bums me out. I think we're going to need a consumer revolt on a massive, massive scale to set things straight. It's not just the music business either. Corporations are great. Some of the greatest advances of mankind have come about because of corporations, but corporations are nothing without CUSTOMERS, and the government is nothing without CITIZENS. Somehow we have to make them realize that. We, the people, can put any corporation OUT of business if we want to. We, the people, have the power to change our government to serve us and not just a small segment of the population. Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson: When people fear the government you have tyranny When the government fears the people you have liberty Thanks for the link Mike, as you can see this is something I feel very strongly about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole subject reminds me of that old adage: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit. All these big companies are hiding behind the artist royalties issue. They say the artist have got to be paid, what they mean is we've got to be paid because we've already screwed the artist out of as much of their money as we can. Here's a possible solution that I'd like to present: Raise the royalty rates on blank media, leave Internet Radio the way it is and quit screwing around with all these lamebrain copy protection schemes because THEY DON'T WORK ANYWAY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ughhh... If I have to listen to 6-song-rotation Tampa radio again.... I can kinda understand some of the reasons behind the fcc controlling the airwaves (national security and air traffic safety), but now they're going to monitor netcasters? The logistics would make it almost impossible. There's too many people broadcasting from their basements and they would have to get around Slick Willy's Freedom of Information Act. However, where there are high priced corporate lawyers and influence weilding lobbyists there's a way. Check out [url=http://www.live365.com]live365[/url] . You can broadcast for dirt cheap, plus they have thousands of independent stations..... but for how long? :mad:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]>>>Raise the royalty rates on blank media, leave Internet Radio the way it is [/b] Sure, then it costs me more money to back up my own projects. Sounds fair. Aerosmith deserves to make a little cash off of [i]MY[/i] music, at [i]MY[/i] expense. :mad: No sir, I don't like it at all... :(
So Many Drummers. So Little Time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well....if a CD has code on it that will crash a computer, I won't buy it. Period. If the big labels want to improve CD sales, they could start by lowering CD prices - 18 bucks for a CD is robbery. :mad: All this just looks like one more attempt by the major labels to quash independent labels and artists...no wonder we see former major-label artists telling the labels to stuff it and going out on their own...Ani DiFranco for instance. TP

---

Todd A. Phipps

"...no, I'm not a Hammondoholic...I can stop anytime..."

http://www.facebook.com/b3nut ** http://www.blueolives.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see why web broadcasters should be treated any differnt that traditional broadcasters. If the RAIA wants to go after web radio for royalties, why not go after broadcast radio as well. The DMCA was intended to address copying copywrite material, not the broadcast of poor quality streaming audio. I actually think copywrite holders (hopefully artists) should get money for airplay, but don't just go after web radio - go after mainstream radio as well. Obviously, broadcast radio is considered "marketing" because they play the stuff the big labels want to push and exposure increases sales. Web radio is treated with hostility because they are independent and less likely to play top 40 schlock.
Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong: James Bryce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Oracle, I don't think any of us would argue with webcasters paying royalties. It's the idea that they should be forced to pay double what traditional broadcast media (radio)pays. In the few years since the GOP deregulated radio,the entire industry has been gobbled up by a handful of corporations. This new rate would make it impossible for anyone but big conglomerates to afford to webcast. In every society,the forces of control seek to overpower individual liberty. In our nation, where these liberties are constitutionally protected,the workaround is to hand all power over to private interests who are inextricably linked to the government. The results of economic dictatorship and governmental dictatorship are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Eventually,anything that you might want to do to improve or extend your own personal control over your own life is illegal. It is the single most powerful destabilizing influence in any society. later, Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coolhouse, That was my point too, probably not as well said. What I was trying to say is that web broadcasting and radio broadcasting are essentially the same channel, different media. Why are web broadcasters being regulated under legislation that was intended to address copying of copyright protected original material - while radio broadcasters are not? As long as the music is being streamed and not downloaded, webcasters should be treated as a broadcast channel - identical to radio. If the RAIA wants to go after web radio they should also go after real radio. But we know that won't happen because the RAIA and big companies like Clear Channel Communications are basically in bed and are trying to squash web radio. If the same royalty applied to every song played on every radio station, I think the rate would be much much lower. It would also be a windfall to recording artists.
Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong: James Bryce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by SFOracle: [b]Why are web broadcasters being regulated under legislation that was intended to address copying of copyright protected original material - while radio broadcasters are not?[/b][/quote]Comin' through loud and clear. Why indeed?...Hmmmm later, Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I encourage you guys to support Save Internet Radio (http://www.saveinternetradio.com) by putting their sample banners on your sites. We need to bring this to as many peoples attention as possible. Now let me throw out a slightly different perspective on this topic. At first I was thinking exactly like you guys. Why were webcasters being treated any different than broadcasters ? Well of course we all the know the reason...Broadcasters actually have money ! And the music industry knows if they totally cut off the hand that feeds them then the backlash could hurt. But the problem is MUCH deeper than simply how much should they pay. The problem is the record company should be PAYING the webcaster. If you look at what is going on in the free market more and more companies are begging web sites and even radio stations to run their ads in return for a percentage of sales. According to a conversation I had with a satellite radio service one of the long distance companies is paying radio stations a percentage of any customers they signed up instead of paying for ads. So if the station has any avails they stick in one of the barter ads. So why not go the same route for the music industry. Why shouldn't the record companies, distributors, record chains etc. have to come to the small webcasters and offer them a percentage of sales ? This way the music industry has some "fat in the fire" and the onus is where it should be. If I have a popular webstation and I send a listener to Sony's website to purchase a CD or download a song, they should be paying ME !. The webcaster is putting up ALL the risk and all the expense, why do they have to pay for that privilege. What is screwed up about this entire discussion is the most expensive part of any business, especially in the music industry is marketing ! The music industry spends millions to promote an unheard band. Why ? To sell CD's, tee-shirts and lunch boxes. The the only reason a band would even sign with a big label, because they are going promote their band. The labels FIND talent they don't create it and anybody can and go into the studio and produce a world class sounding CD now days if you have talent and good engineers and producers. So if your rich uncle leaves you a $100,000 you could book time in the best studio and hire a great producer. So if the entire reason for the existence of a record label is to do marketing, why does a webcaster have to pay for that privilege ??? What is missing in a successful business formula for our industry is partnerships. The music industry has not invested a single dime in helping webcasters or the technology companies. Instead they waste money on stupid copy protection schemes that do nothing but alienate the very customers they want to attract. Can Hillary Rosen answer these simple questions ? 1. What has the music industry done in the last five years to help sell more CD's ? 2. Name one company they have invested in to develop new technology to enhance the music industry ? 3. How many CD's purchases have been sold as a result of 1000's of hours of non-profit webcasting ? Everyone spouts off about loss of sales due to file sharing but where is the research on increased sales due to streaming ? How can you create a CARP pricing structure if you have no idea what kind of benefit you are getting from webcasting ? This kind of study has to be in place and factored before any reasonable price structure could be determined. The bottom line is webcasting is the best thing that could happen to the music industry. If the FCC opened up some new unknown frequency spectrum and there were instantly 160 million radios that could receive these new radio stations, the music industry would not be able to contain their excitement at the increased exposure they would be receiving. But, because file sharing has put a black eye on anything with the words music & internet together, the industry is fighting it. Webcasting brings millions of potential customers to the record labels door step and yet we have to pay to help sell THEIR music ? I suggest that yes the internet is a new paradigm (sorry I know its over used) and if music industry wants FREE exposure for their new artist and FREE marketing then they should go and start their own webcasting business. If Congress wants to stimulate and new emerging industry why not revoke the old outdated payola laws, which everyone gets around anyway, and pass a law that requires the record industry to compensate webcasters for every song they agree to promote. This entire situation is completely turned upside down from the way any other industry operates. It is the music industry that should be paying the webcaster .014 cents for every time they provide marketing support by exposing a new artist to a potential customer. If I had this new whiz bang product I was trying to sell and I went to NBC and said I want you to show off this on your network and I will only charge you .014 for ever viewer that sees my commercial, how far do you think I would get ? What do you think ? Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like for there to be one place in the music industry where big business doesn't crush everything under it's heel. That place could be Internet Radio, kind of like an Electronic National Park. So Lee or someone give us specific recommendations for action: How do we stop the forces of evil from taking over Internet Radio?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]Hey Wewus,[/b] Start here. http://cgi.waveform.net/radioio/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=what+you+can+do&number=21 I would recommend that anyone who finds the stuff on this page to be useful should email the address to all your musician buddies in your address book. [b]Hey Lee L,[/b] Welcome! Good stuff! :) later, Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]So Lee or someone give us specific recommendations for action: How do we stop the forces of evil from taking over Internet Radio?[/b][/quote]TheWewus, I would suggest you start by going to [url=http://www.saveinternetradio.com.]www.saveinternetradio.com.[/url] They have sample letters you can email, links to your government officials and a lot of good information so you can learn the truth about these issues. I should warn you that you might want to be careful about taking any action, its possible that every time you type the word "RIAA", under the CARP decision you might be sued because you have not payed a royalty to put those 4 letters together. I mean after all I am sure that is a copyrighted name. ;) I also would like to thank everyone for the comments on my ideas and the warm welcome. Nice to have a place with intelligent and passionate people with whom to exchange ideas. Personally I believe this is part of the problem with our country, we have forgotten it's OK to agree to disagree. For some reason it seems we have gotten to a place were if you don't agree with everything someone else believes there is something wrong with you. Very weird. Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by LeeL: [b]..we have forgotten it's OK to agree to disagree. For some reason it seems we have gotten to a place were if you don't agree with everything someone else believes there is something wrong with you. Very weird.[/b][/quote]I agree. That doesn't make me wierd does it? :D later, Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great stuff from LeeL! I love when I learn here, but I really love when I really learn here. ;) More great stuff... [quote]Man that bums me out. I think we're going to need a consumer revolt on a massive, massive scale to set things straight. It's not just the music business either. Corporations are great. Some of the greatest advances of mankind have come about because of corporations, but corporations are nothing without CUSTOMERS, and the government is nothing without CITIZENS. Somehow we have to make them realize that. We, the people, can put any corporation OUT of business if we want to. We, the people, have the power to change our government to serve us and not just a small segment of the population. Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson: When people fear the government you have tyranny When the government fears the people you have liberty Thanks for the link Mike, as you can see this is something I feel very strongly about.-the wewus In every society,the forces of control seek to overpower individual liberty. In our nation, where these liberties are constitutionally protected,the workaround is to hand all power over to private interests who are inextricably linked to the government. The results of economic dictatorship and governmental dictatorship are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Eventually,anything that you might want to do to improve or extend your own personal control over your own life is illegal. It is the single most powerful destabilizing influence in any society. later, Mike KHAN is also 100% on. I never heard that side so concise.[/quote]Anyway, I do agree that CD's cost too much and this is a key part of the issue. But, when you look at it from a different angle, you have to ask... isn't $18 really a STEAL for something like "Are You Experienced" or Miles Davis or ANY great work considering the 1000's of hours of enjoyment (and most likely more unquantifiable benefits) a music fan will get from his favorite album? I would say that if it came down to it, I would pay a hefty sum of money for a copy of Billy Joel's "The Stranger", because it was my first and always one of my favorites. Let me put it this way...I went way past the $18 mark! Talk about value. How much does one day of entertainment cost these days? How many years will you get off a great album? It's not how much a CD costs, it's how little of that the artist recieves. Plus, the music business is just dumb. They are losing money. New price plan: Any New Full Length CD: $9.99/2CD $14.99 Any CD Out for Over 6 Months: $7.99 This will require the Label/Distro cut to decrease to keep the artistcut the same, but they will make MORE than they do now. Why? They are operating on an antiquated business plan. Volume is key. Wal-Mart/etc know that it's better to take a minimal profit per item and exponentially increase overall sales. If they go to my price plan, they will barely be able to keep the stores stocked. A side note: All the sales they say they lost to piracy are wacked. They lost sales to the internet, but it isn't from piracy. Since I've been online, 80% of my music purchases have moved there. Retail lost my business to the internet. Not because of mp3's, just because the selection is way better. I still buy just as much music, I just don't do much retail anymore. :thu:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic strikes near and dear to my heart. I haven't worked my tail off for the last dozen plus years releasing CDs to have my promotion options REDUCED by a government body working "on our behalf." So I've sent the following letter to all my elected officials as well as the US Copyright Office. I'm not sure that my little voice (or any of ours) will make a huge difference, but that's what our system was supposed to be all about when it was designed, as I understand. BTW, I was the guest speaker at a Music Business class at a major California university last week, went in steaming with the printout describing this fiasco, and hardly any of them knew about it or any of the other related legislation, or even knew who Clear Channel was! Thanks for sharing this info with us and spreading the word... lz [url=http://www.lauriez.com]www.lauriez.com[/url] ------------------------------- Dear Senator Boxer, I am writing you to express my strong fear that the US Copyright Office may be about to make a decision in the next few weeks that could severely cripple the Internet radio industry. I am a musician and a small independent record label owner, and the results of these decisions directly affect me and my business. In many recent decisions, the concerns of large record labels have been addressed (via the RIAA and intense lobbying) and major label artists. It is equally important to consider the rapidly growing independent artist/label sector. Independents rely on the internet and alternative radio (as opposed to commercial radio with extremely small playlists) to get our music heard. We don't have huge budgets to promote our music to the masses, so resources like the internet and internet radio are critically important to us. I'm extremely concerned about the possibility of having a higher royalty rate levied against internet radio than conventional stations, and I'm even more concerned about the threat of absolutely outrageous retroactive royalties. Yes, I appreciate royalty checks, but truth be told, most of us receive such a small amount in our BMI/ASCAP/SESAC checks that it is relatively imperceptible to our business. However, a loss of avenues through which our music can be heard will hurt our businesses measurably. I respectfully urge you, as the elected representative of one of the most powerful music business states in our country, to please take an interest and a stand in favor of those of us who work hard at a labor of love in the creation and distribution of new, inventive music and express these concerns that I have voiced to those deciding this important issue. I thank you for contacting your colleagues Rep. Rick Boucher and Rep. Chris Cannon on our behalf. With your help, the Library of Congress may be encouraged to set rates that are far more equitable and can allow for the future success of the webcasting industry. Many of your constituents and I greatly appreciate your attention to this concern. Sincerely, Laurie Z. Zebra Productions Redondo Beach, CA [url=http://www.lauriez.com]www.lauriez.com[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

one thing everyone seems to have forgotten to mention is Radio for the overwhelming most part, WILL NOT PLAY Inde/unsigned artists. This is even if they are really talented. There is virtually no outlet for the non Corporate owned and controlled, Payola ridden, artist to get exposure and the conglomerates want it that way. They seek to take away one of the last places inde artists can get some exposure. Radio is all about being PAID for their spots...Being PAID to play an artist a certain amount of times/spots. This is Legalized Payola and as we all know the record companies and radio are all in bed together. I like internet Radio because it's an ALTERNATIVE to the Piece of shit that big business has forced down our thoats of late. I mean come one, Radio has gone to shit with deregulation..worse then ever....Internet radio offers the possibility to find some under exposed non tapped talent. Now, i will agree, too many of these internet broadcasters are playing SHITE...the opportunity is there though, for them to put some good inde stuff on. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE ANYMORE if they kill Webradio people..I do not want to hear the same manufactured boy band, Brittany Spears, non playing non singing no chops can't write a tune, looped to the max Sugar Ray level crap anymore......I'm downright Disgusted with homigenized lowest gutter, common denominator filt on the radio...AND PEOPLE BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHEEP!!!! They are SHEEP!!!!! I mean come on, we can all hear and see what talent is...what good songs are....Anyway, this is what web radio will become and another potential pathway around the Filthy Bastard Gatekeepers to the Big Business of music will be obstructed....They Want ALL Control...Get it ALL control over All music, and if you are not in bed with them, you are not allowed to have an outlet anywhere.....This attitude and arrogance makes me sick to my stomach and more of you should be outraged by what all their actions represent......Example: Cd prices: Let me just remind you all of a few things in brief.......I'm in the process of getting a CD i just finished pressed...1000 copies for first pressing...the entire thing is costing me less then $1.50 a CD!!! that is ME, a little guy getting a small amount pressed..AND i don't own a pressing plant like major lables...I would be awestruck if it costs them more then $.40 a CD to get printed for their artists.........Yea they pay for promotion, recording, artist advance travel etc etc...They FULLY Inflate the costs too....AND The Artist has to pay them back before they see a cent of their royalty...the Artist is lucky to recieve $1 a CDand out of that they have to pay back everything..the several hundred thousand dollar video, the advace, the several hundred thousand dollar infalted recording cost for their album, touring expenses, travel, etc etc..EVERYTHING...SO, a big label will loan an artist cash toget out there and rolling...Several million at least..artist has to pay it all back but only recieves a royalty of around a buck a CD to do it with...and CD's are how much????? By my count, $15.99 and up!! Even ar Walmart....So, by the time you pay retail you are easily at t least 3000% mark up of the cost of the CD....Even if the labels sold it wholesale for 7 bucks a CD it is still roughly 1000% marked up from their manufacturing costs...Oh wiat, they have to recoup cost of getting the artist going etc etc...Well, they recoup that theoretically from the artists ANYWAY out of their measely royalty....Oh, you say most artists do not make enough to pay back record companies....you are right, but they never make anything because the little they may make, the record company takes......AND takes the HUGE markup profit from the CD's they do sell...the Record companies crying the blues is a Joke!! they get their $$ no matter what...I can see only if they have a huge Flop how they could Possibly loose $$..the rest of the time they are making back everything they put in Plus much much more.......So, there ya go, Big Business fucking the little guy out of Greed....And here ya go with Web Radio and here goes another outlet for people who are not in bed with the illumiati......Sorry for the Rant, but all i see are brainwashed people, while well meaning, actually agreeing with RIAA and the FCC about regulation of Web Radio while they forget these issues that are very very near and dear to many of the people who are championing and have pioneered web radio......We do not need any of their Watered down Crap forced on us in Cyberspace......Fine, outlaw all the big acts form being played without being paid royalties...I agree with that..WHO WANTS TO HEAR THAT SHIT on the web anyway? Certainly no one i know....but leave it alone for the indie who want to get played and get exposure for free....It's their poragative in a free society...(we are far from it sadly). So, this is the issue and this is why people like me are up in arms....not sorry for the Rant..Needed to be said.

Sean Michael Mormelo

www.seanmmormelo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b]Bump, due to similarities to Craig's recent thread. :thu: [/b][/quote]Good idea to keep this thread up...and I hope more people are inspired to write to "the powers that be" about this issue. Just a thought - if CD sales slow due to downloads and our internet and alternative radio avenues diminish, Rabid's right (from the other thread) - we're going to have to be pretty darn creative in order to stay in business! ~My 3 cents...calling it a day now... lz [url=http://www.lauriez.com]www.lauriez.com[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My latest investigative efforts in attempt to assemble some sense to the Big 5’s main objective as they begin to utilize the ‘rights’ afforded them under the DMCA leave me reason for a fairly gargantuan post. Now that most every ‘legitimate‘ music delivery outlet has been absorbed into the folds of the quint, the coming draw from the RIAA’s cleverly stacked CARP pile will provide the labels the much desired if not required promotional control they presently lack with airborne transmission. However much our antagonists deny the viability of web radio, rest assured they are fully aware of it’s destiny; a virtual replacement of the AM/FM dials. Had the labels wielded the organization and legislative prowess in the 40’s and 50’s such as they do today, it’s reasonable to assume that the term payola would not exist within the binding of Webster’s pages. To paraphrase Townshend , they won’t be fooled again. The curiously varied and contradictory offerings from the labels currently leaves a perplexing taste in our mouths as they attempt to chart a course to our wallets via the Net. For most, if not all, music is a drug. It satisfies a primal urge and is the catalyst that generate visualizations of life’s past events and future aspirations. The prevailing commerce stratagem used by the software industry has proven to be as effective as the age old marketing principle employed by narcotic pushers. Offer no charge samples to a young market then gradually impose a fee for a bigger and better intoxicant. This seems not only to be the possible fore runner within the current web radio realm but as the template for the music industry as a whole. One need only visit RIAA approved download outlets to discover the varied array of ‘stickiness tests’ put forward for consideration by the label’s subsidiary siblings. As a refresher, note the following summaries from the respective label sites: • [url=http://www.umusic.com/]Universal Music Group (UMG)[/url] - holds approximately 22% of the world music market and the most extensive music catalog. • [url=http://www.warnermusic.com]Warner Music Group[/url] -includes many of the world's leading artists and record labels as well as a preeminent music publishing company. • [url=http://www.sonymusic.com]Sony Music-[/url] - a leading music company in the U.S. and worldwide. • [url=http://www.bmg.com]BMG Entertainment-[/url] - one of the world's premier music companies with more than 200 record labels in 42 countries and one of the world's largest music publishing companies. Managing control of Napster. • [url=http://www.emigroup.com]EMI Records-[/url] - smallest of the “big five” record label, but still one of the major players in the world’s music industry. [b]Now for some of their latest vehicles:[/b] • [url=http://www.pressplay.com]PressPlay-[/url] joint venture between Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group. Offers consumers on-demand access to a wide variety of music that can be streamed, downloaded or burned onto a CD, through affiliates that currently include MSN Music, Yahoo!, MP3.com and Roxio. Features tracks from Sony, Universal and EMI as well as many independent labels. Now charging at USD$9.95 for 500 streams, 50 downloads, and 10 burns. They allow you to burn about an album's worth of music every month, though you can't include more than two cuts from any particular artist. • [url=http://www.musicnet.com]MusicNet-[/url] joint venture of RealNetworks, BMG, AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann AG, and EMI Group; offer digital music subscription platform featuring on-demand downloads and streams from three of the five major recording labels. Offers consumers easy, simple and legal access to a wide range of top name artists. Current MusicNet distribution partners include AOL Music One and Real Music One – both charging listeners at USD$9.95 for 100 downloads and 100 streams. • [url=http://www.realone.com]Real One-[/url] is part of MusicNet, so it has access to tunes from BMG, EMI, Warner, and Zomba. You can't copy it to a CD or MP3 player. You're only allowed to access the content from a single PC. And the content expires every 30 days. • [url=http://www.getmusic.com]GetMusic.com-[/url] this site is created by BMG Entertainment and Universal Music Group to promote its artists, games, contests, fans chat rooms and a CD shop. It creates such online community in the hope that it can enhance the company’s relationships with the consumers. • [url=http://www.emusic.com]Emusic.com-[/url] offers licensed music & [b]unlimited[/b] downloads from major record labels for a monthly charge. [b]Acquired by UMG last year[/b] and the subject of a flurry of acquisitions which included partnerships with Rolling Stone and an aborted $14.3 million investment from giant radio conglomerate Clear Channel Communications. “Hmmmmm” For an example of label’s like UMG talking out of both sides of their collective mouth, check this hyper speak from Emusic’s site: [quote][i]“We know that flexibility is one of the things you like most about downloading music. Unlike many other subscription offerings that restrict how you can use your music, we make it easy for you to transfer your music to portable devices, burn CDs and make multiple copies for you personal use. Once you download the MP3s, you own the music.“[/i][/quote]Some of the other’s restrictions? Pardon me but are you not the kettle black? If your intention is to emit a good ol' boy smokescreen, then you bes toss anudder tar on th' far? By all counts, Emusic is the best, most consumer friendly of the sites offered. But why the disparity within the conglomerate? Is this their man outside the playground fence? Here is the result of a couple of downloads from GetMusic.com: From the ‘Files Properties/Licence Info’ [i]The Turtles-Happy Together Protected Content Can't play on this computer Copy to CD not allowed Copy to portable player not allowed Copy to an SDMI-compliant portable player not allowed Jars of Clay-Fly Protected Content Playback expires in 30 day(s) Copy to CD not allowed Copy to portable player not allowed Copy to an SDMI-compliant portable player not allowed[/i] An interesting story is unfolding in front of us. More and more Ahead Software’s catchy name 'Nero' is taking on a familiar but morphed meaning. Not one, but many are fiddling upon our purse strings. At this point however, it is irresolute who or what will get burned in this recent version of historical repetition. The longer the labels and the RIAA cling to their 'old school' attitudes, the faster they accelerate toward the tar pits. If however they decide to leave radio (however it's delivered) as a [b]promotional[/b] vehicle, charge a reasonable fee to download a no strings attached FULL/partial CD, and compensate the artist accordingly, they will enjoy success greater than even they can imagine. [img]http://206.117.28.84/incoming/436.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's weird! For some reason, my browser back button did something strange, got a message I've never seen before on the Forum, and two more of my previous posts appears... hmmmmm... gremlins at work... :rolleyes: Well, at least it bumped the subject back up... very interesting post by the previous poster, too. Does anyone know who Pëå®hëåÐ?§C is??? lz [url=http://www.lauriez.com]www.lauriez.com[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...