John Adams Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 What a change from the days when the labels would pay radio stations to play their music (for free) on the air. I understand their argument but the recording industry will have a hard time overcoming a laches defense (the defense that the record cos. did not sue radio stations for the last 70 years). http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/r...ding-indus.html
GG Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 From a commercial standpoint, it makes sense for the RIAA members to get paid for the music played on AM/FM. From a logical standpoint, this could be a prime case of careful what you wish for. It's not a good thing to pick a fight with your primary distributor.
John Adams Posted June 24, 2008 Author Posted June 24, 2008 From a commercial standpoint, it makes sense for the RIAA members to get paid for the music played on AM/FM. From a logical standpoint, this could be a prime case of careful what you wish for. It's not a good thing to pick a fight with your primary distributor. And it's not like AM/FM radio is doing so well that they can be pumped for money.
KD in CA Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 It's not a good thing to pick a fight with your primary distributor. I would think not. Isn't free radio still how the vast majority of people become aware of new music?
GG Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 I would think not. Isn't free radio still how the vast majority of people become aware of new music? Yup, and that in itself is a quandary. There is much more music being created than the available playtime on radio. The online sites are getting better at breaking new acts, but radio is still the major catapult into the big time. It will be interesting what kind of deal they strike - a flat fee structure or tiered based on the song's popularity.
Recommended Posts