|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/13/06 03:49
"Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:9fOdneU1DPnJ-uDYnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@golden.net...
> 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.
Did you read what I read? The copyright owners, i.e. the music companies,
receive royalty payments every time their music gets paid -- the radio
stations pay it to BMI and ASCAP. Record companies also sell records, and
exposure helps, which is why they like it to play on the radio.
>
> 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.
>>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|