|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Avian:
Quote:
as to pervasiveness... Quote:
Also, Howard Stern has been coursing through your body. And you do have to have a "special box" to pick it up. But just owning the special box does not mean you agree to objectionable programming. Signing something is. (btw, Stern is one of those programming situations that really challenges what you can and cannot broadcast - imagine if he were on cable, what we would see... wait he is on cable) Everyone likes to jump on the FCC, but they have actually become a lot looser since the reorganization in 1990 (I think it was that year). The standards for what can and cannot be broadcast have widened significantly, as Avian pointed out. Quote:
Quote:
Now this is all neither here nor there, because the issue is not about content, it's about royalties. I was just trying to point out the difference between broadcast and webcast and cable, and why since they are differently legally, the RIAA can in fact charge more than they do broadcast, because no precedent has yet been set. That's all I'm trying to do - nor more, no less. Sorry if I offended. Yesspaz out.
__________________
Feels like I'm fiddling while Rome is burning down. Think I'll lay my fiddle down, take a rifle from the ground! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 AM. |