I wish I’d said this, I can’t hardly believe it was written by a record company president and 32 time grammy nominee:
Why is it that record companies pay dearly for radio play and fight internet play? What is the real difference between radio and the internet? Perfect copies? If we look at the as analogous to radio, the problem becomes one of performance rights, not the unlawful exploitation of intellectual property. People are creating their own “radio” on their hard drives, and they are constantly changing it. Would this have anything to do with the “McDonaldization” of radio by Clear Channel and others? Would the fact that almost every song on commercial radio is bought and paid for have anything to do with the narrow focus and homogeneous nature of radio? What drives radio is advertising and money, not music. A lot of music gets left behind thanks to the current state of radio; that consumers are rejecting it shouldn’t be surprising. They’re creating their own MP3 playlists, and if the labels were smart, they’d be doing everything in their power to be on those playlists, just like they do everything in their power to be on the playlists of radio stations. Instead, they scream copyright infringement and call their lawyers.
Between 1991 and 2001 the cost of making CDs dropped, but prices increased by 12%….
“[The major labels] don’t want you to sample their music because they know that if the fans realize there are only two good songs on a record, you will not buy it … We believe in our product.