[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: OT: CARP passed- this sucks.

I'm afraid I don't have alot of the background and finer points of this
discussion, but I feel a rant coming on...

My favorite internet radio station has already succumbed.  

Isn't his whole fee paradigm based on the assertion that internet radio
is a digital copy of the source? The unprecedented rates charged the
broadcaster is because it is a digital medium and the RETROACTIVE nature
of the charges which will be presented to the providers will drive
smaller internet broadcasting outfits and college radis OFF THE AIR. 
Personally I think the sound quality SUCKS - I have yet to hear an MP3
that has the sonic character of the original recording.  Streaming
audio?  HAHAHAHAHA.  This is not a digital copy of the source.  If I
like something I hear on the internet - I buy the material (from the
ARTIST, if possible).

The government seems to be carving up the internet to the advantage of
the mega-corporations, just as it did with the *formerly* public
frequency bands that comprise radio and TV airwaves. This is as big a
theft as I can imagine.

I see this as another power-grab (not just a money grab, which any MBA
would advise their employer to run with).  The US legislation is
ANTI-COMPETITIVE, and designed to monopolize the medium.  Fees or no
fees, this is bad for art.  The record companies have been sucking the
life out of artists since they positioned themselves between the artists
and the public in the 1950's.  They're not there to 'publish' music,
they're there to RESTRICT what you hear so that particular artists can
generate revenue streams -for the record companies.

And please don't say that a musician/artist needs to sell T-shirts to
develop a revenue stream - that's just capitulating to those that want
to control what types of music get heard on the internet, and whose
clients are played in each genre.  
For me, the potential power of the internet is to BREAK DOWN the
stranglehold of the record companies.  I am not suggesting that artists
that can hustle and get their music out there should not be paid.  I
was/am very uncomfortable with the whole file-sharing thing and think
that is was essentially a shameful ripoff of the artists.  EXCEPT for
the artists that were willing to put examples of their work out there to
develop a fan base. 

I have to believe a new fee-based paradigm can be developed.  A mix of
fee-based play and free-based (hmmmmm - that doesn't sound quite right).

Yes I wrote both my state senators BEFORE the legislation was passed. I
expect that I'll try to find out if they voted in the peoples' interest,
and I do intend to hold them accountable.

Sorry about the length/tone of this outburst.  I'm ready to get back to

Dan Ash