Support |
On Sunday, June 23, 2002, at 02:18 PM, Kim Flint wrote: > ...If you can't figure it out, and there's a real opportunity there, > somebody else will figure it out and take over. I know that LD isn't free. You donate your time and money to make it happen, and for that you should be hailed. If there's a person on this list that thinks this happens because of little internet fairies in the middle of the night, you're very mistaken. LD is a labor of love. Not only yours, but all the time of the "artists" who contribute time and knowledge, which is what really give LD substance, like musicians give the RIAA substance. It this case, it's clearly up to us to "donate" or skill. I think musicians just need to start demanding a provision for internet radio play, which really isn't profoundly different than traditional radio, other than the fact that it may be easier to capture and distribute a stream of internet radio. Others might argue that you can easily record music off the radio too, and that didn't seem to kill the record companies, but I don't want to get into that argument at this point. What I was trying to illustrate was if this same thing happened to you, LD would die, or worse yet, get taken over by Time/AOL/Warner. I guess my main issue isn't that the RIAA is trying to gather money for it's artists, that's actually a good thing. It's just that I see the industry, and it looks very very lopsided to me. It seems like 10% of the talent is making 99% of the money. If SOMA FM gets charged .07 cents to play one of my songs, and then Sting ends up with .02 cents of it, that's NOT OK with me. Didn't the radio industry get in trouble for taking money to play songs? So why was it good to have radio play artist's songs then, but not now? I know why: BECAUSE IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THEY CAN'T CONTROL IT THIS TIME. There is is in a nutshell. I don't think it's as much that they want to charge for music, but they want to control who get's played, and they can't do that on internet radio. Mark Sottilaro