|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 125 of 151:
| 
Dec 19 23:02 UTC 2003 |
Since I'm working for a phone company / ISP these days, I'm particularly
happy not to have to worry about being handed additional work by the RIAA.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 126 of 151:
|
Dec 21 05:48 UTC 2003 |
An article in Salon recently claimed that some week in December 1969
was the greatest week in rock history, as _Abbey Road_, Led Zeppelin's
second album, CSN's first album, Santana's first album, and half a
dozen other notable rock albums all charted in the top ten on the same
week.
In claiming that something like that was unlikely to happen again, the
author stated that it was easier to make the top ten in those days
because albums in general sold many fewer copies than they do today.
This struck my curiosity, because part of the argument in this topic is
that record sales have been dropping. I guess one should ask, compared
to what standard? Have sales been artificially high over the past 2-3
decades, and a drop should not be so alarming?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 127 of 151:
|
Dec 21 06:54 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps in the current day we have fewer major-label record releases
which are expected to sell many more copies apiece? There's certainly
less variety on the radio and I'd be pretty willing to believe there're
fewer choices on record store shelves (assuming you can even find a real
record store anymore..) It wouldn't surprise me to learn that back when
there were five times as many albums being released (to just make up
a number) an album only had to sell half as many copies (making up another
number) to make the top ten..
|
orinoco
|
|
response 128 of 151:
|
Dec 21 20:23 UTC 2003 |
I know I've heard that movies need to sell tickets more _quickly_ these days
than they used to. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true of albums
too -- I get the impression that records are expected to sell quickly and then
disappear, rather than stick around at a medium-high level of sales (the way,
say, "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Back in Black" have). So that might account
for some of the difference in statistics too: even if overall record sales
are dropping, the expected first-week or first-month sales figures for a
successful album might be rising, the same way first-weekend ticket sales for
hit movies are still rising.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 129 of 151:
|
Dec 21 22:00 UTC 2003 |
Given the pay-for-play system that prevails on most commercial radio
stations today, underperforming records probably aren't given time to
become sleeper hits or build up a cult following. Anything that isn't
an immediate hit is probably considered too expensive to promote.
|
twenex
|
|
response 130 of 151:
|
Dec 21 22:06 UTC 2003 |
Yer don't say...
|
keesan
|
|
response 131 of 151:
|
Dec 21 22:48 UTC 2003 |
Who pays whom for play?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 132 of 151:
|
Dec 22 00:23 UTC 2003 |
Record companies pay "independent promoters" to play their records.
Promoters pay radio stations for control over their playlists.
As a result there's very little chance you'll hear a record played
on commercial radio stations unless the record company has payed a
promoter a considerable sum of money to have it aired. Apparently,
although the end effect of the system is not a great deal different
than the "payola" practices made illegal in the 50s & 60s, it's not
actually illegal because the record companies aren't paying the
radio stations or disc jockeys directly (not that most disc jockeys
get to choose what they play anymore..)
I really don't pretend to understand the legal issues but the matter
has been pretty well documented in recent years.
|
keesan
|
|
response 133 of 151:
|
Dec 22 00:43 UTC 2003 |
Are record companies still trying to charge internet radio stations which want
to play their music? In the early years of vinyl records they apparently
tried to make the radio stations pay them, until they realized it made money
for them if the station played their records.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 134 of 151:
|
Dec 22 02:42 UTC 2003 |
I believe they are, though the license fee was significantly reduced.
It's still a substantial burden on Internet radio, as far as I know.
|
keesan
|
|
response 135 of 151:
|
Dec 22 04:27 UTC 2003 |
Considering the quality of internet radio, you would think anyone who listened
to a piece on it and liked it would want to go buy the CD instead of recording
from the internet. And that the companies would therefore pay the stations.
|
remmers
|
|
response 136 of 151:
|
Dec 22 14:38 UTC 2003 |
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
|
tpryan
|
|
response 137 of 151:
|
Dec 22 15:02 UTC 2003 |
I thought an internet radio station that reaches less than
100 (fixed by real capacity) is charged more per playing than a
radio station that can reach 100,000 or more.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 138 of 151:
|
Dec 22 17:17 UTC 2003 |
To the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge the radio station
is charged nothing, so that's probably true.
|
goose
|
|
response 139 of 151:
|
Dec 22 18:05 UTC 2003 |
Radio stations pay royalties to the groups such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.
everytime they play one of the agencies songs. It's how songwriters get
royalties.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 140 of 151:
|
Dec 22 18:21 UTC 2003 |
Hmmm.. I thought they didn't. Guess I was mistaken.
|
gull
|
|
response 141 of 151:
|
Dec 23 14:53 UTC 2003 |
There are two copyrights associated with any given track -- the
songwriter's copyright on the song, and the record company's copyright
on the performance. Radio stations don't have to pay performance
royalties but they do have to pay songwriter royalties.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 142 of 151:
|
Dec 23 16:23 UTC 2003 |
And last I heard, it is an all-or-nothing license for BMI,
ASCAP, etc. No partial payment for playing less than 10 percent
music, such as for talk stations.
Which means that when a sports-talk station is playing
Gary Glitter's 'Rock & Roll', as a theme, there is a probability
that he is missing royalty payments on that.
|
tod
|
|
response 143 of 151:
|
Dec 23 16:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 144 of 151:
|
Dec 23 17:28 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:142,resp:143: There are special rules for songs used as the
opening or closing themes for radio shows. If less than a certain
percentage is used, half the normal royaly is owed *if* the song is used
as both the opening and closing theme. If it's used for an opening or
closing, but not both, then no royalty is owed. So The Pretenders don't
get anything out of Rush Limbaugh's broadcasts, for example, since he
only uses "My City Was Gone" as an opening theme.
I believe these licenses are also "compulsory", which means that as long
as a station pays the royalties they can't be refused the right to play
the song.
|
tod
|
|
response 145 of 151:
|
Dec 23 17:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 146 of 151:
|
Dec 23 17:38 UTC 2003 |
"DVD Jon" Johansen, the author of the DeCSS DVD-decryption software, has
been acquitted (again) by a Norwegian court of appeals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3341211.stm
No word yet on whether the verdict will be appealed.
|
tod
|
|
response 147 of 151:
|
Dec 23 17:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 148 of 151:
|
Dec 27 10:02 UTC 2003 |
But isn't that just it? Greed?
|
twenex
|
|
response 149 of 151:
|
Dec 27 23:59 UTC 2003 |
Yessir.
|
