Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Kim's arguments would be right on if we were all trying to make music that was commercially viable according to the prevailing tastes of the pop music market. This, however is not the case. Many (if not a majority) of us are making music that appeals to one or another of the many small "mini-markets" that are not served by either the major record companies or the major broadcasters and Webcasters. The CARP fee structure was based on an economic model of a major Webcaster (Yahoo, to be specific) and this doesn't take into account the economics of the minor Webcasters. These minor players are in many cases deliberately small, without aspirations to achieve the scale of the Majors. They may not WANT to go after "real advertising" but as Kim points out, they probably won't survive without doing that. So where does that leave the new Web-based music distribution scene? I foresee the music scene becoming even more bimodal than it already is. The "small" artists, the "small" record companies, and the "small" distribution companies will have to fly under the RIAA/CARP radar along with the "small" Webcasters, while only the biggest and most profitable of these entities will be able to exist within the CARP economic system. Missing from this scenario will be the medium-sized Webcasters who up to this point have been playing a mix of music; they won't be able to survive. Probably the biggest problem with this situation is that artists, such as certain members of the looping scene, who might stand a chance of "crossing over" to capture part of the mainstream audience will now have a harder time doing so. The venues won't exist. At 1:54 PM -0700 6/23/02, Kim Flint wrote: >according to this article, there is new legislation in place that >guarantees musicians and performers a chunk of the royalty in the >case of new forms of broadcasting over the internet. Sounds like a >victory to me. Finally musicians get some pay for all the work they >do to bring money to somebody else. > >So why fight against that? It doesn't make sense to me. It seems to >me you should all be fighting to get the laws changed so royalties >are also paid to musicians by the broadcast radio business as well. >You achieved one victory with internet broadcasters, now march on to >get another one. Am I missing something in all this? > >Well, it does explain one thing to me. It sure is clear why >musicians are always poor and getting screwed out of their rights. >When somebody finally offers you something you fight against it? At 2:18 PM -0700 6/23/02, Kim Flint wrote: >So when all of these webcasters are crying and moaning that these >new royalty rates are exorbitant and oppressive, I think they are >full of crap. I just don't believe that story at all. They're not >going out of business from it unless they just roll over and die >without even trying. They just have to go figure out how to sell >real advertising instead of "the museum of musical instruments" or >whatever other pathetic ads I listen to all day on these stations. >If they can't figure that out, then they will be going out of >business anyway. -- ______________________________________________________________ Richard Zvonar, PhD (818) 788-2202 http://www.zvonar.com http://RZCybernetics.com http://www.cybmotion.com/aliaszone http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=rz