

The Royalty Scam: "...we need to establish the principle of artists’ rights throughout the Internet" - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22bragg.html?ex=1363924800&en=ba1c8624f73c894c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

======
mattmaroon
This is so wrong on every level.

He clearly doesn't understand what really happens on radio. New musicians
essentially pay to be on it, indirectly of course (to circumvent anti-payola
laws).

On Bebo/Myspace they get to promote themselves for free. It's a symbiotic
relationship between artist and social networks.

~~~
wumi
"this is so wrong on every level"

It is not really as simple as you make it seem.

he gave his argument point by point -- if you're going to make a counter
argument to his whole piece, why not do a full counter-point?

"On Bebo/Myspace they get to promote themselves for free. It's a symbiotic
relationship between artist and social networks."

And the big-name artists who are on the billboard 100 (and have millions of
plays on their myspace pages) aren't getting royalties while myspace is making
money on advertising -- that's the point he's making.

The value of Myspace is largely staked on the big-ticket musicians it has,
while other sites like amiestreet do more to promote indie artists.

It's no different than Youtube making a deal with the major record labels to
bankroll on all the unsigned musicians doing covers.

There's a balance to be sought here, and this guy seems to be an established
musician, and for them, they are often getting the short side of the stick
(even when the labels are suing web companies)

~~~
mattmaroon
Done. <http://mattmaroon.com/?p=342>

------
procrastitron
The market seems to have already agreed that artist exposure is a fair return
for online postings.

I don't think the author appreciates how valuable that world-wide, democratic
exposure is. The artists may not receive any direct revenue from it, but it
can greatly enhance real sources of revenue, like concerts and merchandising.

