Posted by PTravel on 12/13/06 18:25

"Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:p_mdnSAQccyokh3YnZ2dnUVZ_qmpnZ2d@golden.net...
> With all due respect-- and I mean that-- , did you read what I said?
> Merely that there is a well-known public allegation (by the then attorney
> general of New York State, Eliot Spitzer) that Sony-BMG and other music
> companies have been providing radio stations with various "incentives" to
> play their songs. This is well-documented, in the New York Times. I
> didn't say what you imply I said-- that Radio stations don't pay to play
> songs, though clearly I don't think that's pertinent to this issue.

I may have misunderstood your post, in which case I apologize. Payola has
been a problem with radio stations and record companies since the 50s. I
don't understand the relevance of payola issues to public posting of
protected expression.

>
> Besides all that, my point was really that of irreverence: I simply don't
> believe that most mainstream media companies really want their copyrighted
> material off of Youtube. It is inconceivable to me that Enya's lawyers
> would allow her video to play 100's of thousands of times if they really
> wanted to put a stop to it. Clearly, they can, if they want to.

Perhaps they don't. I know that my content-creator clients wouldn't
necessarily object to some forms of their protected expression being posted
on Youtube. In fact, they encourage fan sites, and have a variety of
material on their website available for free download.

>
> In fact, I find it somewhat amusing that while we are all squawking about
> "how dare they..." when the thing many artists want more than anything
> else in the world is to have their video played 100,000 times on Youtube.

The point, though, is that this may be true for "many artists." It's
certainly not true for all content-creator/owners. Moreover, there's
clearly a viable commercial interest in internet-accessible material such as
this. As an example, Revver provides a means of profiting from free access
to this kind of content. Youtube obviously cuts into the bottom line for
this kind of thing. Right now, it's relatively simple -- a content provider
can send a take-down order to Youtube. If revenues are really hurt, the
larger content owners can bring RIAA-type lawsuits against some select
infringer. The fact that a few major content creators may receive some
benefit from the infringement doesn't justify the disregard for legal rights
displayed by the Youtube uploaders.

>
> I find myself often in agreement with you, but in this case, I think you
> misread my post, or, at the very least, ignored the gist of it.
>
> PTravel wrote:
>> "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.
>>

[Back to original message]