Date:         Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:16:31 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Urgent Message From SaveNetRadio
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=response

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.
>