4 ms·
I think the problem with music broadcasts (TV or radio) is that they'd need permission of the artists and/or publishers before they could sell it commercially.
by johneth 11y ago
I think the problem with music broadcasts (TV or radio) is that they'd need permission of the artists and/or publishers before they could sell it commercially. It's probably for similar reasons that they don't show all the Glastonbury stuff (mixed in with revenue sharing - some artists/publishers might want too much, for example):
> "On occasion an act may not wish to be filmed or recorded. Artists may also agree to be recorded but only allow a limited number of songs to be aired. This could be for a number of reasons for instance: the quality of some parts of the performance, because they do not wish to broadcast new or unreleased material, or they do not want to broadcast their entire live set."
I do agree that it'd be a good idea to do, though.
- Ntrails 11y agoI mean, obviously artists could opt out (and tracking them all down for back catalog perms would be a nightmare - I'm not without sympathy for the effort involved) but going forward could they really not set up a default agreement? The fact that they DO release some stuff commercially seems indicative it's entirely possible. Glasto is indeed another great example of audio tracks I'd gladly pay for - funnily enough though by the time the BBC takes it's coverage down some valiant internet person has stuck what I want up on torrents.