I don't see what this is trying to do. The artists probably wouldn't see the money this would bring in, so why would Billy Corgan be pushing for it?
Who said they wouldn't see the money? Royalties seems to imply that the band most certainly would. If they don't, then I promise you most musicians would go on strike in order to get money -- just like the whole online sales thing for many artists.
Royalties don't imply anything. The record company could see the royalties or it could very well be the artists but do you honestly think the artists would get a significant percentage? Probably not. EDIT: It seems to me that Billy Corgan and the RIAA are just being assholes about it. Artists have managed thus far without royalties from radio stations. I don't think radio stations make enough revenue to pay artists, besides the fact that it's giving the artists the exposure they need to sell records.
I'm sure most nonmajor radio stations barely make enough money from advertising to pay their DJs and keep their stations on the air, let alone make enough to pay royalties for songs they play.
This is fucking stupid. The major radio stations just play pop shit that makes enough money anyway. And the smaller radio stations which play music by artists who are in need of money, mightn't have enough money to pay royalties and some could end up shutting down. So help the rich get richer while screwing over independent artists? Sounds somewhat familiar.
Um, yes, it does imply something. Performance royalties would give the artists money, just like if they allowed a song to be used on a commercial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties#Music_royalties I'm not sure if it's a good or bad idea. You're right -- radio stations don't make much revenue. But to use your arguments, radio stations have managed to get this far without paying royalties, so obviously they're not making that little of revenue.
This is fucking stupid for two reasons: First, radio stations can't possibly have enough money to pay royalties to every artist they play. Advertisers -- who radio depends on to survive -- aren't exactly giving cash away in this economic climate. So where is this money supposed to come from? Second, radio is a tool to promote, not to generate revenue (directly, at least). That's why payaola exists: record executives know radio is a great way to expose artists to new people, so they're actually willing to pay for that exposure. Now they want to reverse the roles? Seems arrogant to me. Not to mention ill-advised.
It seems that every time Billy Corgan says something he manages to put himself across as being that little bit more self-important than the last time.
I know what royalties are, thanks. Glad you know how to use wikipedia. So going by the fact that radio stations exist (mainly because of advertisements) you're arguing that they should pay whoever owns the rights to the songs (which isn't always the artist btw) and that simply just doesn't make any sense when radio is the main reason anyone even knows these artists. At least before the Internet got so huge with music. Do you honestly think radio stations make enough money to exist as a business and pay out the hundreds of artists they play? I somehow highly doubt that.
Thanks for the sarcasm, I'm glad you know how to utilize that. I linked to Wikipedia for your benefit, buddy. I'm not trying to boast or talk down to you, but I've taken entire classes on this matter. I used it for a point of reference for you to understand what I meant. I'm not sure what else you want me to tell you. Clearly you did not know enough about royalties if you were arguing that it didn't imply artists would get something. Performance royalties would give them money from anything that uses their recordings of their performances, hence the term. Furthermore, I never said that. In fact, I said I wasn't sure if it was a good or bad idea: "I'm not sure if it's a good or bad idea. You're right -- radio stations don't make much revenue. But to use your arguments, radio stations have managed to get this far without paying royalties, so obviously they're not making that little of revenue." Sure, it acts as a promotional tool, but you don't honestly deny that radio stations playing the band's music allows them the ability to gain listeners? Hasn't hurt Clear Channel. I'm not saying they should give them a ton. I'm saying maybe they should give them a nominal amount. Maybe not. I don't know the entire facts behind it.
I believe he is saying that whether or not they could survive depends on how much they would have to pay as royalties.
I don't even see why this is an issue. There are a lot of awesome radio stations around here. Some donate to charity, others hold fundraisers for causes, others just help people. A radio station my family listens to all the time has a thing about sending special needs kids to Disney Land every year. Another takes in letters from listeners about certain friends that need help and will help them. Anyone that thinks that we should be taking money away from THAT, well... I really wouldn't know what to say. This would be a clear case of 'the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.' What is Billy Corgan going to do with those extra royalties? Buy more badass stuff for the Hollywood Hills mansion he lives in? I understand the struggle of artists these days, but I don't see why you would have to take it out on the little guys who are promoting your music. If you want more income, maybe you should protest how little of the CD sales cut you actually earn.
And you have yet to address almost anything I say. As for your question ("Do you honestly think radio stations make enough money to exist as a business and pay out the hundreds of artists they play? I somehow highly doubt that."), I thought I answered that by telling you I don't know. And I'm more than willing to bet that neither do you. All you're doing is talking based off of assumptions. I somehow highly doubt that you know anymore about how much radio companies make than anyone else here. I could be wrong, but you haven't given any special insight into how radio stations run. I agree, plenty of radio stations do excellent things out there. But so do a lot of companies in different areas. Microsoft donates tons of money to charities and the like, but I don't think they should be forgiven for anything they do wrong. I'm not saying anything the radio companies are doing is wrong, I'm just saying using donations as a reason why they shouldn't pay just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. To me, at least.