Posted by Bill on 12/11/06 14:12

If so, those payola scandals and their modern incarnations are
completely wrong-headed. It is alleged that music companies have been
bribing radio stations to play their tunes. That would be a strange
thing to do if the music companies didn't feel it was useful to them.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060308/1244231.shtml
http://www.chromedecay.org/rob/?p=624
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60616FF385B0C758EDDAE0894DD404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fS%2fSpitzer%2c%20Eliot%20L%2e

Either way, the consumer does not pay to listen to most radio stations.
He hears advertising, which is, in a way, what the song is as well: an
advertisement for the CD he can purchase at the store, or a concert he
can buy a ticket for.

PTravel wrote:
> That's completely wrong.
>
> Radio stations receive revenue from advertisers based on the number of
> listeners. Radio stations pay license fees for the music they broadcast to
> BMI and/or ASCAP.
>

• Next in forum: Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?
• Prev in forum: Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?
• Thread view: Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?

[Reply to this message]