RED ALERT to Avian

[Yesspaz]

Name: Kyle Thompson
Location: shiver9899@yahoo.com
Occupation: Grad Student

I have a BS in Mass Media Communication, and I made an A in Media Law (one of the two hardest classes I ever took).

I saw this coming. I wondered how long it would take. Doesn't mean I like it. I'm a huge fan of internet radio.


In my opinion, labels and copyright lawyers should let this one go. What we have today is a stale radio enviroment, where the gatekeepers all copy each other. It is nearly impossible to find alternative forms of music (not talking aobut altrock here) in today's market driven world without going to the internet. Now, what has been my experience, as well as tens of thousands, if not millions of others, is that we go online, find a station who's profile we like, listen to it a lot, and consequently discover TONS of music we didn't know existed that we love, and bought way to many albums thereafter. When internet radio becomes something only rich conglomerates can do, internet radio will be exactly like broadcast - crap. The reason? Dramatically fewer stations will exists, and they will go for the lowest common denominator to get the most listeners, just like broadcast. Consequently, I think many labels will see a dramatic drop in sales of their "non-big-name" artists, and smaller labels who push many bands based on 10,000 copies moved will simply fold. This will seriously hurt the "art aspect" of music for quite a while. This will hurt music lovers, most artists (especially those who, because they are not acceptable sounds to the gatekeepers, will now not get exposure), and "art."


In the long run, I think the law should be revoked. I know it won't be, but I think it should. I've spent more money on records since I started listening to internet radio than ever before. I will not, however, pay to listen to it (or however they intend to raise the money - ads?). I think the labels and artists lose in the end, because the won't move discs.