|
I believe that artists should be compensated for their efforts whenever someone else attempts to profit by their work. I do not believe in downloading songs from the Internet for free. I have never done it and never will. It's clearly theft.
In the past few years, I have only purchased discs by some of the lesser known artists - because I like their music. I have never heard The Flower Kings, Tony Levin, Lemur Voice, Illuvatar, or even Yes, lately, on any commercial stations. If I only listened to commercial radio, I would have no knowledge of these bands. I agree with Yesspaz. Forcing Internet 'radio' to emulate broadcast radio will hurt the small labels and crush the only creative artists (IMO) currently working. BTW, I too, have purchased more music since finding these 'unknowns' on the Internet.
I am happy to hear that AM gets permission from artists and labels to broadcast. It seems like the best way for less-commercial bands to reach their buyers. In fact, perhaps THEY should be paying AM for the chance to be heard! (Of course, once AM starts making a profit, they should be paying the artists.) I realize that's a rather convoluted argument, but nobody said this was gonna be easy!
Let me get to the point I'm hoping to make. It seems reasonable for record companies to try to protect their investments (and profits) by elimiating Napster-like rip off sites. On the other hand, forcing non-profit sites into profit mode will do more harm than good, especially to music lovers. There should be room in the regulations for artists and labels to allow certain sites like AM to continue providing services without fear of Big Brother, aka Big Business, taking over.
One last point, if Big Brother forces you to collect info on me, I'm outta here.
|