Re: The RIAA are a bunch of commies

[Hedewa7@aol.com]

chris,

>I think what it comes down to is that the RIAA is
>realizing that they and the record companies they
>represent are fastly becoming obsolete, and
>they're doing everything they can do stop that
>from happening.
but the major record companies still show phenomenal profits, don't they?

>I have one question: if a song of mine gets
>played on a webcast just once, how much will I
>get from the RIAA for that broadcast?
from what i read, you get .07 cents (that's 7/10th of one american cent) 
per 
*listener*, unless, of course, i've misunderstood.

>Will it be
>substantially more or less (or the same) as what
>I stand to make if someone hearing the broadcast
>decides to buy my CD (which for the sake of
>argument, let's say can be bought from me
>directly for $10). 
in a theory which is borne out by the current state of business affairs in 
the music industry, you would be capable of making much more money via the 
composerhood & publishing of a given recorded track than via selling the 
material disc..... by sheer dint of the velocity & speed of the internet 
vs. 
the velocity/speed of snail-mail & carbon mat'ls, i shld think.
but: that's *certainly* the way it is in the current 
record-company-as-bank 
(ie, 'pseudo-patron') situation:
the composers & publishers make the most money, for the longest period of 
time, regardless of who-the-artist-is.


>My point is, a seriously doubt that most of the
>artists out there who might concievably get
>webcast airplay. Unless we're talking about Led
>Zeppelin or The Who (who can played like 10 times
>a day, everday on each classic rock station in
>America), I seriously have a hard time
>understanding how anyone stands to gain from
>this. I don't know what the advantage is for
>getting a check for 7 cents 
(i believe they said .07 cents, not 7 cents).

>because a college
>station in Alberta Canada or New Jersey or
>wherever played one of my songs at 4:00 am. 
ah, but if those stations are correctly 'reporting' their playlists, then 
you'd be wrong.

>But I
>DO know the advantage, if, say, 10 people who
>hear that broadcast (and let's just for the sake
>of argument say 8 of them are listening to the
>webcast), decide they like what they hear and
>follow up and actually buy my CD. 
the name of your song was not announced, or it was announced..... one hour 
after it was played inna string of 12 other artists' songs, but:
you got paid, anyway.

>If CARP ends up
>pushing all non-commerical broadcasting off the
>web, I think we end up losing in the wrong run. 
maybe.
all's i know is:
i attempt to get paid for what i do, when it's appropriate (like when the 
'non-commercial' website is profitable to *somebody*)..... so that i can 
continue doing it.
best,
dt / s-c