If musicians send their work to a broadcaster for promotional purposes,
their compensation is that promotion; listeners hear their work and some
buy it. That's enough. Licensing companies are just making a buck for
Jim Combs wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Clark Wilkins <clark@...> wrote:
> > This is exactly how I took Loren's statement as well. Darrell is
> > running a service that promotes the artist's work* and certainly
> > should be able to play anything he wants to. And the artist being
> > played is certainly entitled to a share of the revenue generated.
> > By my calculation, the artist has gained promotion and their fair
> > share of the fees. Sorry, Loren, but this seems like a very
> > position on your part.
> I think Loren and Clark correctly assume composers/musicians should be
> paid for their work. Clark, I do not believe a PRO artist can decide
> if promotion is fair compensation because they have contracted with a
> PRO (and intellectual property law) to make that determination. The
> artist doesn't get a say at that point. That is why there are
> publishing contracts and recording contracts. This stuff is all
> contractual and legal. It's not interpretive.
> > > > So basically it's not that you don't mind paying
> > > > small fees and object to having to pay larger fees,
> > > > its really you don't want to pay anything at all,
> > > > at least when it comes to compensating the artist
> > > > that made the music.
> I think Darrell is saying his only options are to pay the larger fees
> or to abandon PRO-affiliated artists (going with CC-affiliated
> artists), or stop altogether.
> > > My radio station is a non-commercial, zero-revenue station that I
> > > created, have worked my hiney off on, and pay for every month out
> > > my own pocket - all for the sole reason of trying to promote the
> > > ambient genre. I don't get a penny out of it. Further, I am an
> > > ambient artist myself. Now, if you consider me to be some kind of
> > > greedy radio station owner, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. And
> > > honestly it's pretty offensive to me personally given the blood
> > > and tears that I've put into this effort, to suggest that I'm
> > > selfish by refusing the pay the ridiculous fees the industry has
> > > created.
> > >
> > > Very simply the industry has priced itself out of the net radio
> > > market. Would you prefer I simply close my doors?
> I do not. But for your own sanity, I think ultimately you'll need to
> decide what you "pay out of your own pocket" for. Is it to promote
> your own music, or promote other musicians, or program music for a
> listening audience, or to geek out on and exploit internet protocol
> technology, or to be in community with like-minded individuals, or
> sell advertising/sponsorships, or find/develop new musical talent,
> There are lots of ways to do the above that do not involve these
> ridiculous industry fees. AND there are lots of ways to do the above
> that make these ridiculous industry fees look like chump change.
> Ultimately, you have to decide how much you can invest, how much it
> costs, and how much you receive to determine if it is "worth it."
> Starving for ones art is old hat. How often have you seen someone
> starve for business?