Slashdot Mirror
IFPI Won't Share Pirate Bay Damages With Musicians
An anonymous reader tips this news from TorrentFreak:
Earlier this year the sentences against the Pirate Bay defendants were made final. Aside from prison sentences, they will have to pay damages to the entertainment industries, including €550,000 to several major music labels. The court awarded the damages to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses. However, it now turns out that artists won’t see a penny of the money, as the labels have allocated it to IFPI to fund new anti-piracy campaigns. ...While it may come as no surprise that the music industry has a hard time getting money from The Pirate Bay defendants, what comes next may raise a few eyebrows. 'There is an agreement that any recovered funds will be paid to IFPI Sweden and IFPI London for use in future anti-piracy activities,' IFPI writes. In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all."
This certainly comes as a huge surprise...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Stop buying music altogether and this problem will go away...
That's all. .)
They operate like organized crime. (In regional cells and a strict hierarchy ruled by having connections
They harass people like organized crime. (Mostly protection rackets.)
They defraud and steal from people like organized crime. (Getting creative works from others, then asking lots of money for every worthless copy, without moving even a single finger.)
They take drugs like organized crime. (I had a colleague who had to do all the deals with that industry for our company. Often there was no way of even making a deal without at least consuming cocaine and ordering some hookers. [I wish I was just making that up.])
They would shoot and torture people like organized crime, if they weren't openly in the spotlight and could get away with it.
They are organized crime.
So we must treat them like organized crime.
It's the musicians who sign up to these labels. They're the ones doing work for them. They're the ones who could cause the labels to shrivel and die simply by choosing or building alternative distribution methods.
Worst of all are the half a dozen successes who pretend that these scrounging middlemen act on musicians' behalf, with superstar whores acting no better than the celebrity representatives of Scientology from Bee Gees to Metallica to Lily Allen (only joking, Lily - you're no superstar, you're shit).
Judge orders innocent men both prison time and to pay â550,000 to the thieving criminals. More news at 11.
No shit the money isn't going to artists. The IFPI thieves do nothing BUT steal money from the artists, did you honestly think a court ruling would change that?
Now make sure to spread this to every single one of them employed by said company and make them feel guilty as absolute hell for still being under a label as corrupt as they are.
While I know a good chunk of musicians are equally as corrupt, most actually aren't and are just afraid.
Artists don't need these stupid labels anymore.
They made sense back in the disconnected world.
Most of the world is connected up in some way or another, even if it is only indirectly.
In particular, most of the world a musician would care about reaching is connected.
People pirating songs isn't going to do a damn thing.
People pointing out how corrupt they are on some blog or community isn't going to do a damn thing.
Making the artists realize their labels are corrupt and don't give a damn about even their lives IS going to do something. It already has worked before, and it can do it again.
Some labels go as far as walling in their "property", closing them off from reality as much as possible. That is the worst part!
This is a godly piece of information that every artist, musician and anything even remotely related to the industry and label should read. Everyone has to see this, not just generic consumers or bystanders. The labels don't care about opinions.
I'd feel a modicum of sympathy for these musicians if they understood that the record companies have never cared about their careers, just about how much money they could wring out of them before disposing of them and moving on to the next disposable musicians, but they don't.
They naively believed that they're all on the same side and the reality is that they've never been and never will be.
This has been well known from the start. For the RIAA/MPAA/etc, the recording artists are *resources*. Like lumber, or oil, or minerals. Just something to be mined and discarded when it's of no further value. You don't see mining companies making sure their mines are well taken care of, do you? Or taking the profits from the sale of the minerals and pouring the money into old, abandoned mine shafts?
Of course not. Artists are resources to be consumed.
Suing copyright infringers is really just fucked. It's like if I, as a citizen, started sending letters to people for jay-walking; I'd sue them in civil court for $5,000 (with photograph evidence obtained legally), or I'd settle for $50. Just sign the papers, fill in your bank details, then we'll deduct the money from your account.
Is that legal? In this specific example, probably not, unless I *owned* the street. Let's say for a moment that I do.
Is it immoral? I'd consider it immoral.
I publish all my books DRM free and I don't give two fucking shits if people download them illegally. Every time one of these fucking "sue the piraters FOR THE ARTISTS", I always say... "Where's my share?" I own the rights to books. I publish them electronically. They get "pirated". Why shouldn't I get free money for it?
Well?
Well?
The real reason is, obviously, the MPAA/RIAA are cunts and the idea that they're doing this for the artists in any way is completely retarded.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
It's the musicians who sign up to these labels. They're the ones doing work for them. They're the ones who could cause the labels to shrivel and die simply by choosing or building alternative distribution methods.
Worst of all are the half a dozen successes who pretend that these scrounging middlemen act on musicians' behalf, with superstar whores acting no better than the celebrity representatives of Scientology from Bee Gees to Metallica to Lily Allen (only joking, Lily - you're no superstar, you're shit).
"we call it Riding the Gravy Train."
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Doesn't surprise me one bit. Here in Belgium you have Sabam which also collects money from different sources but "fails" to get the money to the artist. If I remember correctly last year artists where waiting for about 200 million of euro's and that in Belgium alone. You know how much interests they get on such sums ? And those interests don't get into the pockets of the artists.
They are also masters of getting money out of peoples pocket. When a slick Sabam inspector arrives, you know it will cost you money and they go through some stupid lengths to justify the "extra's" you need to pay.
A flemish satirical program Basta! went even that far to organize a concert with a jar of vegatables (from the brand Suzy Wan), a mixer from Kenwood and another thing that I can't recall. And Sabam slapped them with an invoice for those "artists". So they went with the jar of vegetables and the mixer to the Sabam HQ so the "artists" could sign up to get their money.
Sabam was not amused en when the Basta! guys where planning to give concert with those 'artists', they called the police.
Sabam was even under investigation that they falsified the accounts so they could put money away to bribe officials. But even after all the shenanigans those organisation can still operate. And it isn't that the general public doesn't hate them, they loathe them with a passion.
That is using the failed logic that a pirated copy is a lost sale. Also if all funds received from courts for piracy go into fighting it more the artists will never get any of it as it will be a continuous loop.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Check out the current Humble Bundle: http://www.humblebundle.com/
FLAC Audio and DRM-Free, not a penny to the leeches! And if you think that the bands are too hippy, you can choose to send all of your money to the EFF who actively fight said leeches.
Even if we accept the utter bs argument that piracy is stealing(it's not), this would mean the "stealing" is from companies who themselves steal from the artists.
Interesting.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Except these activities have about as much chance to increase the sales as the Kyoto Protocol has a chance of decreasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the next few decades.
Ezekiel 23:20
It was never about the artists. Stop pretending it's about the artists.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all."
Anyone who is at all surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.
That is using the failed logic that a pirated copy is a lost sale.
Not only that, but it isn't as if ThePirateBay (and it's not even shut down...) is the only place to download things.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
This whole lawsuit is very similar to someone suing the telephone company for listing a gun shop in the yellow pages that sold a gun to someone who murdered someone.
The RIAA and the IOC are very similar in this regard. They don't care about the people they make money from. They don't want to pay them. They want to take anything they earn and keep it for themselves. Their weapon of choice is copyright and also trademark in the case of Prince and the Olympics. And they seem to get worse each time you hear about it.
That's the basic message these industry groups have sent again and again. I'm sick and tired of being guilt-tripped by anti-piracy campaigns when it's the producers of those same campaigns that have been giving the artists they claim to represent the short end of the stick for decades now.
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
From TFA:
In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all.
This is not a logical conclusion. If anti-piracy activities increase future sales by detering illegal copying, the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels.
You do realize that "money that the Court awarded" and "increase future sales" are not the same? One is actual cash, and the other is wishful thinking. So, logically, your second sentence is a non sequitur.
Is there anyone who was thinking something else would happen? Didn't the RIAA do exactly the same? The institutes work like the mafia. They claime to 'protect' the artists but in fact their only purpose is raking in as much money for themselves as they can.
The court explicitly declared that the money should go to the artists. If the artists decide it should be used for that, fine, but it should be going to the artists first. If they decide to give it to someone else for some other purpose, whatever, but not giving it to the artists is violating a direct court decision.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
If anti-piracy activities increase future sales
This is probably not going to happen. For ten years, one filesharing system after another has been shut down, yet people are still downloading (and the RIAA/IFPI/etc. are still in business). It is very unlikely that the majority of downloads correspond to a lost sale.
the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels
What is that proportion? The problem here is that what benefits the labels only really benefits a tiny minority of artists in any meaningful way.
Palm trees and 8
But you kind of hit on the reason why this problem is the fundamental problem, but also why getting musicians to act can't possibly be the solution.
That reason is that people like Lily Allen only succeded in the industry because her dad got her there due to his contacts. The fact is the music industry is absolutely full of acts who just wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the industry to turn them into a product. These artists wont leave the industry because it's the only way they can make a living doing what they love - they sure as hell couldn't go it alone because without the music industry's cartel operation to prop them up they wouldn't stand a chance in a free market where they're competing based on talent.
The industry keeps these people employed as "artists" whilst keeping any uncontrolled real talent that hasn't signed up out. It's a protection racket, unless you sign up you've got no hope, and half those who have signed up signed up because they had no hope otherwise anyway due to them having a severe lack of talent compared to everyone else.
There's just trash after trash after trash - Nikki Minaj seems to be the latest abysmal excuse for an artist that's being thrust repeatedly on the radio here in the UK right now. A few good artists make it through, like Rihanna does actually seem to have some talent, for example, but even they get used as tools to prop up the shite - case in point, I don't know what song it is because I don't care but there was a song on the radio a few weeks back which involved some fairly decent singing from Rihanna and then you get that silly Minaj bitch come on to just completely destroy the track. Had she not had Rihanna to prop up the song most sane people would just completely and utterly ignore the track. Christ, I don't even like this type of music, but again, because of the cartel, there's really little choice to listen to anything else during my commute as it's all the radio stations play in the UK.
Instead, the government kept all of that money justifying that they would/might someday provide Medicare for those people -- despite the fact that most did not receive Medicare benefits! The State governments even announced that they were using the funds to build roads and for other projects!
This is one more demonstration that these types of groups seek to champion causes in order to perpetuate themselves, by keeping up the fight (fear), rather than relaying recovered damages back to those who were harmed. It's disgraceful.
Ahh, the contrary opinion.
At least you say "if". Do anti-piracy activities increase sales? Sadly, it's difficult to find studies on this question that aren't biased. That's not a big problem however. The question is not that important. It doesn't matter if sales drop to nothing.
Copying is good. The public benefits enormously. We save hugely on not having to stamp millions of plastic disks, ship them to all corners of the world, and store them. DRM is one of the purest wastes of money I've ever seen, as it is almost entirely ineffective, and known to be unworkable. That's the least of the benefits. This also wrests control away from the oligarchs, always a good thing. They could centralize and concentrate power under the old technologies of physical media and all the facilities that required, and used and abused that power to gain more control over both the artists and the public and to make sure they got nearly all the profits. They could afford to bury any artists who wouldn't submit to their absolute control. They've also tried to manipulate the public into accepting a small number of big hits, rather than allow the flowering of a much more diverse world of music, as the former is easier to milk for profits and takes less effort to produce and manage. Now they can't do any of that anymore. We know of Payola, Clear Channel, and the dull sort of radio station that plays nothing but the same few dozen big hits, sometimes 2 or 3 times in the same day. We are finally seeing the beginnings of the paperless office envisioned as the start of the Age of Information. We have a long way to go, a lot more to gain. Imagine the savings and greatly increased usefulness of a digital public library. Quick searches of the entire library for any combination of information imaginable! No more lost books, late returns with the associated fees, unavailability because all copies are currently checked out. Imagine no longer having to fool with paper receipts and all the problems of storing and organizing them. We should not deny ourselves these benefits to prop up a business model that the more intelligent among us have understood for decades is no longer at all practical. We can compensate artists by other means. Don't let the cartels sucker you into thinking copyright is necessary, good, or enforceable.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
That lets us list artists and whether or not they are enslaved to one of these organizations. Make it an easy way to check who its safe to buy from, and to clearly indicate which artists are recording for one of these Organized Crime media companies.
A useful tool to let folks speak with their wallets.
I don't buy any music at all. I also don't download it. I don't listen to it anymore unless it happens to interrupt the talk radio stuff I do listen to (mostly CBC here in Canada).
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Why is this allowed? I hope artists get together and sue RIAA/IFPI. As mentioned in other comments, these organizations are nothing more than bullies.
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
Sasayaki! Damn, meeting you here of all places! I knew that name sounded familiar. How is your book sale going?
----
I remember reading about his book on TvTropes[1], and he offered his book free for a day. The problem was, it was not available for my region, according to Amazon's rules. So yeah, even if I *do* want to do something legally, I can't do it!
I don't know if the facts and figures match, but I personally feel most of the piracy happens in the developing countries, who simply *can't* get the item! (Don't consider torrents only, due to lack of reliable internet, most pirated stuff is downloaded once, and then burned onto CDs en masse, which are then sold at cost) Frankly, people here are happy with crappy vga cam rips, some thing hollywood could just let out for free and gain much more revenue on ads.
YMMV, but I feel that if you *have* created a global network, let it *remain* a global network.
[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13261689090A06160200
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Pirate Bay is .... pirates.
RIAA/IFPI are privateers. Want to fix the problem? Rewrite the crazy copyright laws and reduce the terms. Its not about benefits to the artists. It never was. Its all about slipping more cash to the middlemen.
Have gnu, will travel.
That is using the failed logic that a pirated copy is a lost sale. Also if all funds received from courts for piracy go into fighting it more the artists will never get any of it as it will be a continuous loop.
That's ridiculous. He never said that every copied track is a lost sale. We'd be idiots to believe that 100% of copied tracks are lost sales. We'd likewise be idiots to believe that 0% of copied tracks are lost sales. What percentage of copies result in lost sales? Nobody knows. But it isn't 0%. So the GP's statement stands that if illegal copying goes down, profits go up. The only valid argument is about the ratio.
This is exactly why I don't buy music from stores. The only discs I have were bought directly from the artist after a live concert. Doing so, I believe I am sponsoring the artist directly because the discs they sell after stage, despite still being produced by their record label, do not contain distribution and retail fees. The disc price might even be higher but that way I really believe I'm sponsoring the artist and not the mafia.
As a side benefit, all of my discs are signed by their respective artists ; )
After all the IFPI/MPAA/RIAA represent the media companies and not the artists.
It sounds better that they represent the interests of the famous artists everyone (supposedly?) likes rather than the faceless company that leeches of their talent. After all, it's the media companies who create these groups. This is why performing artists form their own unions and trade organisations to represent themselves. The only way this story could've been interesting is if the IFPI did something that was in the interests of actual artists.
It's unrealistic to expect that the MAFIAA will be stopped if artists no longer sign with them. There are probably 10,000 - 100,000 artists that sign with them. If some fraction decide to stop, they'll just sign some more to replace them. And what's the average lifetime of most artists nowadays... less than 5 years? So they're easily replaceable.
Besides, these so-called artists don't even really do very much. The MAFIAA makes its killing on the major 'stars' who don't honestly do very much themselves. All they do is find find a woman that has no respect for herself or her image or a boy that'll make 12-year-old girls horny, then they manufacture a song and market the shit out of it. Let's face it - there will always be at least 100 people who are stupid and/or desperate enough in America to enter some kind of ridiculous bargain like this. So there really isn't much of a way to stop these 'artists' from signing them.
Now as for the rest of the artists who aren't stars but still actually make their own work, you could argue that we need to fund independent labels so they don't sign with the corrupt labels, but what do you expect that to achieve? It's gonna take a lot of artists and a lot of marketing to make any success for them.
But regardless, the only hope of breaking these industries is to break their public image. There needs to be created a New World Order of sorts in the music industry, one which will make the current labels look antiquated and corrupt. Explore new revenue models: support real online music stores like Jamendo and Bandcamp that actually support the ones who make the music and cut out the middlemen. If we break their image, then we can start to push them out of the way. They will try to take us back over, but if we tarnish their image so much that they can't recover, then maybe there will be hope
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Listen to Radio 4. No music, just science documentaries, comedy and interesting talk. A little island of sanity in the otherwise bullshit laden electromagnetic spectrum
The guy who had the patent for how windshield wipers worked took decades to prove it in court, getting settlements that never even covered his many hundreds of thousands in lawyer fees.
The system is set up for lawyers. Note 99% of politicians are also lawyers.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
That album was released in 1975, 37 years ago. Back then there was no Web, the Internet was still ARPANET, copyright in the US only lasted 28 + (optionally) 28 years and the RIAA wasn't suing their customers left and right. It's not comparable.
Dilbert RSS feed
Hear hear. I strongly recommend Just a Minute for anyone who wants to know what "Britishness" really is.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
A lot of aspiring musicians don't realize how bad the industry is before they sign. Once they sign their first contract, they're pretty much stuck unless they want to break a contract as the companies involved won't release their final contracted album until they sign a new contract.
It's the musicians who sign up to these labels. They're the ones doing work for them. They're the ones who could cause the labels to shrivel and die simply by choosing or building alternative distribution methods.
Worst of all are the half a dozen successes who pretend that these scrounging middlemen act on musicians' behalf, with superstar whores acting no better than the celebrity representatives of Scientology from Bee Gees to Metallica to Lily Allen (only joking, Lily - you're no superstar, you're shit).
Why would anyone think they are acting on the artists behalf? That's like thinking that McDonalds is acting on behalf of the guys making your big mac. The artists are not that important. They are the product, not the customer.
IOW, the more things change, the more they stay the same. :-)
artist: Rush
single: The Spirit of Radio
song: The Spirit of Radio
Label: Mercury Records
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Radio
It's the musicians who sign up to these labels. They're the ones doing work for them. They're the ones who could cause the labels to shrivel and die simply by choosing or building alternative distribution methods.
Worst of all are the half a dozen successes who pretend that these scrounging middlemen act on musicians' behalf, with superstar whores acting no better than the celebrity representatives of Scientology from Bee Gees to Metallica to Lily Allen (only joking, Lily - you're no superstar, you're shit).
That's because, back in the Bad Old Days before the Internet, a record deal was 1 act in a thousand or so were hyped into stardom to show that 'it could be done' if you 'worked hard and did what your label told you to do', baiting more thousands into willingly selling their souls for a chance to do the same. Nowadays, anybody can post a music video of themselves on Youtube and have the chance to do the same. Bieber originally did that, and got co-opted by the labels because somebody thought they could make money off him if they kept up the hype, NOT because they thought he had talent.
Hell, in this day and age, talent is a hinderance in pop culture. Prime example: Snookie.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
According to this model they would use the money to sue more people in order to get even more money from the state they could use to sue... Anything else would be against the market's principles.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
Of course, the MAFIAA isn't getting any money either, because the Pirate Bay people don't have any.
With autotune these days you can get a frog sing like a opera singer... No talent needed. Looks good? Check. Accepts orders w/o a big deal? Check. Will work for peanuts? Check. Okay, one more sucker ready for the pop-music meat grinder!
That has always been the case. Singer-songwriters have been the exception in the music industry, not the rule.
Most of the world is connected up in some way or another, even if it is only indirectly.
As I see it, there is such a thing as too indirect. Recording artists not signed to major labels get their works played only on the Internet, not on FM radio. So if people discover new music during drive time, how can artists reach listeners who happen not to subscribe to a cellular data plan? Or what am I missing?
And how many of those artists do you think are going to risk their careers by standing up and complaining about it?
I'd love to answer that question.
Maybe someone like Zukerberg, Ellison, or Apple Corp could just buy *all* of the major labels
That would require Apple (AAPL, mkt cap $548.5B) to not only buy Sony (SNE, $12.4B), Vivendi (VIV, €19.8B or $24.4B), and a privately held company, but also to convince competition regulators in multiple countries that this isn't foul play.
Makes the model Apple selected for their App Store look generous beyond words. I'd buy music from Record Labels if I knew 70% was going to artists. Since I know they get pennies (less than 1% most times), I'll not buy from them again. Feels too similar to buying a stolen CD from someone. I only buy directly from musicians.
didn't the IFPI just commit piracy? If you take from the pirate what he has plundered and not return it to it's rightful owner and 'repurpose' the bounty aren't you just as guilty?
some people are a "glass half empty" some are "glass half full" i'm a "there is something in the glass be happy" person
one of the biggest problems is that while artists can unsign themselves from a label, they can not (in most of the world) unsign form the copyright protection monopoly "representatives" which collect fees for radioplay, public performances and so forth, part of that money is then used to do things like sue piratebay. worst part is that that their business is approved - and awarded to the specific org. through law.
so once you sign up you're registered forever and you will have to pay.. for even performing your own shit. so even if new artists would stop signing up it would take a loong time for their income base to flush out(and in some cases they'll take the money for artists they don't even represent anyways).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
.... Let's face it - there will always be at least 100 people who are stupid and/or desperate enough in America to enter some kind of ridiculous bargain like this. ...
I don't think you pay attention. There is 100 of thousands of people who would. Those same people that try out for American Idol and other shows like that, the cam whores on youtube. The reality TV stars. We have way too many people who will do whatever to be a star.
Be seeing you...
From TFA:
In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all.
This is not a logical conclusion. If anti-piracy activities increase future sales by detering illegal copying, the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels.
OMG, you drank the koolaid!!!!
illegal copying has nothing to do with losing a sale. In fact, studies that they try to hide, show that sharing music leads to more sales.
And being someone who
Be seeing you...
No, McDonalds is acting on behalf of the cows!
There are several things to do to be a successful rock band. Which part do you think is harder?
1. Playing music
2. Marketing
In the grand scheme of things, musicians are of little importance to the final product.
Let me guess ... you are working in marketing.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Well said.
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Alternatives are getting here I would say.
Agreed. I donated a few bucks even though I don't like any of the bands
it's just put on the business account from which also the artists are paid.. In regard to articles like this, a lot of people are soo biased and twist everything to make the industrie look bad.. Well, it's those entertainment companies who get the money, it's the entertainment companties who pay the artists (mind you, most artists are just some form of regular employee's)..
But people think those companies do nothing for the artists and take all their money.. Well think again, does your boss give you extra money because the product you made sells much more? you have a contract with your boss, you read it, you signed it, and you didn't have to go for it if you didn't like it.. Especially these days, artists can record and promote themselves, but still they choose to go through the companies, why do you think that's still happening?
Without those companies there wouldn't be the entertainment you like/enjoy/hate so much, but a lot of people still want it for free, and then bitch they rip the content because the money isn't going to the artists themselves.. How hypocritical can you be, you're worse than the companies the artists work for, because you won't even pay anything even though you consumed the content..
"I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue" has the around the right number of single-entendres to provide an insight into Britishness.
I know the truth and I know what you're thinking
Sure but my point was she at least has that, whereas in contrast, Nikki Minaj doesn't but is still thrust upon our radios for some reason.
Even if they can sing it's something, but most of them can't even do that now.
And so yet another group has figured out how to profit from piracy. It's now in their best interest for piracy to continue. If they stamp it out their business model fails.
If you listen carefully, in between the NPR crap and the Jebus channels, you will find the small 10 and 100 Watt College Radio stations.
Unless there are so many NPR and Jesus stations in a given city that the FCC doesn't have any frequencies below 92 MHz left for a secular college radio station. I seem to remember this being the case in Fort Wayne, Indiana: Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) wanted to start a radio station, but there wasn't any open frequency.
i think it's worthwhile distinguishing between "listeners whose only exposure to new music is drive time radio" and "listeners who are reachable by other means". having redefined our target listeners as the latter group [...] where exactly are these other listeners reachable?
And how many of these other listeners are there? Before fully committing to the latter, we also need to compare the size of the former with the size of the latter in order to rule out the latter being so microscopic that it is an edge case not worth serving, much as home theater PC owners are widely considered an edge case not worth serving within the video game market.
I mean, you, as a major corporatation, don't want to deal with *artists* or *authors*, who are notoriously difficult to handle, and have their own opinions[1], and want a real share of the profits[2], you want "content creators", who produce work for pay, and can be easily replaced, like any packages boy band, girl band, or whatever.....
mark
1. For example, as a corporation, you might have deals with airlines....
2.
Let's try this again: footnote 2: http ://www.janisian.com/reading/internet.php
mark "gotta be some way to add a link"