3 ms·
Well, that's what happens when you pin your business model on content you don't own. It sucks, because labels and consequently artists will be missing out on t
by mr_eel 17y ago
Well, that's what happens when you pin your business model on content you don't own.
It sucks, because labels and consequently artists will be missing out on the revenue and promotion that might come from wider web broadcasting.
- riffic 17y agotraditional radio has been in business for decades, with a similar business model. they pay the record labels nothing.
- mr_eel 17y agoNot true. Traditional radio stations do pay royalties.
- anamax 17y agoThey pay royalties to song-writers but not performers.
- riffic 17y ago"For years, stations have paid royalties to composers and publishers when they played their songs. But they enjoy a federal exemption when paying the performers and record labels because, they argue, the airplay sells music." http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/21/business/fi-radio21 http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/21/business/fi-radio21
- mr_eel 17y agoWell, that's interesting to know. That's certainly not how it works in Australia, which coloured my perception of things.
- rubinelli 17y agoGood observation. I was listening to Chris Anderson's Free on the commute home, and an interesting case he mentions is how, back in the XIX century, radios created their own label, BMI, so they didn't have to pay royalties that would render their business model completely inviable. I think that whoever succeeds in this area will do something very similar, working with indie artists from the very beginning, maybe even producing their albums.
- decode 17y agoLawrence Lessig also talks about that case in this great TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strang...