Alistair wrote:
Unfortunately you are missing a big chunk of the equation. The music was
not free, the radio stations paid for it.
John: That was in response to my writing:
We all used to get FREE music all the time!
It was a little thing called RADIO!
But Alistair I think you are "Cherry Picking" a little on my email. I said
that music was "free" to the listener and paid for by ADVERTISING. This is
the model I am suggesting for the internet.
Listeners did not PAY A FEE to listen to the radio. I was not saying that
the radio stations didn't pay. I said music had to be paid for and that USER
PAY is not the way to go.
Model one: British television. User pays a licensing fee to own a
television.
Model two: North American television: Programming is paid for by
advertising. (User "pays" with time spent watching said adverts).
As a kid I never BOUGHT any music. Not because I was cheap, but because I
didn't have any money. But I listened to a LOT of music, for "free".
Also, someone wrote that suing everyone all the time is the answer. But that
has led to a complete TRAVESTY of justice with the welfare mom who was sued
for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the six songs her 12 year old
downloaded.
I know they wanted to make an example of her. For me, however, it makes me
feel utterly unsympathetic to the music industry.
All the best, John
Reciprocity
