Date:         Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:47:14 -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

Looks like the net radio people and nameless hoards of "listeners" might have their day for now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/business/14music.html

Obvious to me: there's money to be made all around and this whole fight is kind of like dancing on 
the Titanic deck given the state of the music business. Also obvious to me: the "demand" that net 
broadcasters "limit listeners' abilities to store the files on their computers" is an impossible and 
dumb request. A smart negotiator doesn't inflame a negotiation by asking for something he knows well 
the other party cannot ever, under any circumstances, deliver.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "phillip holmes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Urgent Message From SaveNetRadio


> 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.
> Phillip
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
>