As I've read more and more on this whole mess with the RIAA I've noticed that the issue has brought to light for a lot of people the uneven playing field we were on to begin with.
Specifically, I'm talking about the fact that Broadcast Radio pays NO royalties to the RIAA while internet radio does.
Some people involved much more deeply in this than I am are starting to make waves over this issue, wondering if it's something they can challenge.
So far, in all my reading I've found no explanation of why this was set up this way to begin with.
I know some of you have read a lot on this subject lately as well, anyone know the reasoning behind internet radio being stuck with these royalty rates?
From what I do know, the RIAA feels radio is an important vehicle for advertising their product, so they often SUPPLY the stations with product to play.
Why on earth they wouldn't view us the same way is beyond me. I would think the fact we PAY for the music to begin with would be good enough!
Well, its all about the dollar, but I think they are hiding that under the digital "perfect copy" umbrella. I think their reasoning is that listeners may be able to get a perfect digital copy of that highly compressed 32k mp3 stream they are listening to.
WebGuy wrote: Well, its all about the dollar, but I think they are hiding that under the digital "perfect copy" umbrella. I think their reasoning is that listeners may be able to get a perfect digital copy of that highly compressed 32k mp3 stream they are listening to.
lol, yeah, that makes sense Web. I mean, really, the 32k stream sounds JUST LIKE that 1411kb a CD is at.
You know, that's why we mix the song fade-in and fade-out. They encourage us to talk over the open of a song, etc.
THAT'S why they don't want us to specifically announce what song will be playing or tell people exactly when their request will be heard.
