[BC] Certain Spots Blocked From The Internet

[Harold Hallikainen]

>
>>Then, it never made sense to me that a station should have to
>>pay the RIAA for playing music.  If anything, it seemed to me
>>it should have been the other way around, because the station
>>was giving exposure to the music and causing people to go out
>>and buy it.
>
> That's an argument you and I know to be true. When I programmed
> WPIX-FM, New York, I had record promotion people practically crawling
> up the side of the building to get to my office to pitch their music.
> They were also paying independent record promoters to augment their
> own people. I got CDs in the mail that didn't even fit the format. If
> radio wasn't important why did they pester me so much? If radio
> people are allowed to make our case there's no way they could argue
> we had no affect on sales. With today's formats it's not such a
> compelling argument but the history of radio and records being
> jointed a the hip shoots their argument in the foot.
>
> I'm afraid much of the government's ruling on this will come from
> back room, closed door meetings where radio isn't welcome.


Does Sound Exchange have a monopoly on this? Are there other ways of
working out performance and composer royalties than paying a set rate
through Sound Exchange (for the performance royalty)?

On as to who should be paying whom, I thought there was a good article on
Radio World on this a few months back. If the airplay actually increases
sales of the recordings, the recording company should pay the stations.
But, if airplay replaces sales, it should be the other way around. So, do
people listen to the radio INSTEAD of buying recordings?

Harold



-- 
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com