3 ms·
That's a really shitty golden goose.
by gravitronic 13y ago
That's a really shitty golden goose.
- jdh 13y agoPlastic goose?
- ChuckMcM 13y agoDoes that even matter? Since the marginal effort on the part of the performer is exactly zero? (which is to say they don't have to "do" anything to be on Pandora, they just collect checks from BMI/ASCAP). If a musician is arguing that they are being driven into poverty by poor royalties, losing them completely seems to make them worse off.
- gohrt 13y agoYour argument applies retrospectively to past creations, not prospectively to future creations. Also, eliminating Pandora might (or might not) increase royalties via other media.
- robryan 13y agoI would argue eliminating the streaming services would more likely make the pie smaller. I don't think all the people paying x a month or ads supported are going to suddenly start buying albums.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoCompared to what, FM radio? Which pays NOTHING? Artists, get over yourself. The market is huge now, and your product value is approaching zero. But keep on flailing in the noose. EDIT: Half credit. Per dllthomas, "Per the article, FM radio pays royalties to the songwriter but not the performers."
- gravitronic 13y agoFM radio pays royalties.
- dllthomas 13y agoPer the article, FM radio pays royalties to the songwriter but not the performers.
- adrr 13y agoIts reverse. Record industry pays to have their songs played on the air there's even term for it, payola.
- angersock 13y agoHuh, so that's where the term comes from. Interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
- toomuchtodo 13y agoAt my latest gig (new media), my employment agreement actually has a whole section on payola. #TheMoreYouKnow
- dllthomas 13y agoForbidding or encouraging? :-P
- toomuchtodo 13y agoDefinitely forbidding :-D