|
This is just such a kick in the groin for all the independent artists and niche performers trying to break into the industry...I've always viewed the net as a vehicle for such voices, as it's able to reach across a broad geography.
On the face of it, it's fair for record companies to collect fees for the use of their material in promotion of an entity that sells advertising based on the content they provide...but in introducing a flat fee, the only interests being protected are those of big money radio, whose advertising accommodates such flat rates. There's no way small internet venues can support this, whereas it's a drop in the bucket for big broadcasters.
The logic is "we're doing it for the artists". But in the end, independent record labels lose a medium thru which to sample their product out, and the big labels remain safe in their corporate, spoon-fed American-Idol business model cocoon of safety imposed by Congress.
There's no reason not to support legislation for fees based on revenue...revenue is the surest indicator of listenership and market penetration one can point to, and there is certainly a precedent in this country for revenue-based fees/taxation. There's no reason a big-money radio stations shouldn't pay more to broadcast a song to hundreds of thousands if not millions of listeners than a small internet startup pays to broadcast to a few thousand. There's no reason not to believe that big money radio had everything to do with this flat fee nonsense and the fact it was even considered as a fair and equitable solution for artists, broadcasters, and record labels regardless of their size.
Let's see this for what it is: Big business drumming small business out of business via legislation instead of product value and merit.
Last edited by hithere : 05-02-2007 at 03:51 PM.
|
Linear Mode
