mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB | Out of the box thinking....
Bah,
The RIAA and ilk should *pay* the stations to play the music.
The bottom line, if no one played the stuff, then no one would buy it, right?  |
|
Pete_64
join:2001-12-20
KingstonON
| I agree that they should have to pay a % of there revenues to the RIAA. They are making money on other peoples work
I am against the 2 cents or whatever it was per song played. a fixed percentage makes more sense. It allows the smaller companies survive. Consider it a form of tax |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| said by Pete_64  :I agree that they should have to pay a % of there revenues to the RIAA. They are making money on other peoples work Depends: is it a "break even" or a "for profit" affair. If it's "break even" or less (i.e., they charge, but it's enough to pay operational costs or less), 2% of revenue still radically alters the ability to continue to function.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | reply to mazhurg
Actually the record labels DO pay radio stations to play music. It's called payola and it's illegal, but it is being done all the time. Lots of times it's not actually cash they "pay" with, but a bribe is a bribe. |
|
