You can listen to the song on the radio if you wanted. Point being that the artist still get revenue from that.

Being an artist is creative profession. If you choose to go down that road you know it can take years to make a few pennies. And in this day and age you also know the big bad record companies only want to make money off you. That's why most artists have a regular job to support their hobby until their hobby becomes their job.

Look, I think we're kind of talking past each other. The problem I have with the way things currently go is that music, right now, is an infinite money resource that's way out of proportion. If you want to sell your song on iTunes for a dollar that's fine. The problem I have is the money that is made of radio airtime and airtime at events and such. You're charging people money because they are (involuntarily) listening to something they don't even own. Why can't music be treated as any other medium? You buy it for the price you think it's worth and if you as a radio station then want to put it on the air there should be no extra charge for that.

And on the note of illegal downloading, I pay 14 cents authors compensation PER empty CD (60 cents for a DVD) because I MIGHT copy music on them. That is some major bullshit.

Because it is being used on a public broadcast. The reason there's no need to charge people for listening to songs on CDs is because they're (generally) just for personal use.
I thought that you thought artists were paid too much and even the little artists should be able to fund tours and stuff.

In fact, most artists have a regular job because their music doesn't have commercial potential. Some of these are genuine artists, which is why their stuff doesn't have commercial potential. Some of these are just philistines who are just caught up in youth culture and actually can't compose or play a note, which is why their stuff has no commercial potential (although looking at popular music, that is the sort of stuff with commerical potential). It is only the former that may feel that a record deal wouldn't benefit them much and would thus find another way to make money or would make money by playing in bars and by teaching.
Because of copyright laws, broadcasters are charged for the use of any intellectual property protected by copyright (unless Fair Use can be applied), not just music.
I am not an advocate of the blank tape levy. This is one thing which I agree is ridiculous, but I don't think that any or much of the money goes to musicians. In fact, it is worth noting that the record industry is opposed to the levy.

That's my point, intellectual property is retarded. Music, movie, book, game, doesn't matter. A broadcaster, in my opinion, is free advertising. They put your track on the radio, people hear it and might buy your stuff. Instead the radio stations have to pay to advertise, so to speak. It's the wrong way around, it just doesn't make any sense.

Just like if I wanted to promote someone's book at a seminar or something. I'd have to pay the writer to read part of the book to the audiance or even show the graphic, while it's basically free advertising and if people like it they will buy it at the exit anyway.

Broadcasters broadcast intellectual property for entertainment purposes, not for advertisement purposes. Broadcasters make their money by making sure people are having a good time. In other words, they're exploiting other people's intellectual property for their own gain.
You argue that artist will receive some publicity, but you've got to remember that lot of people who listen to the radio or watch the television or whatever are not really interested in the music or the film - they just use it to socialise or to distract themselves from reality. The only time they might buy it is if they see it in the bargain bin on the eve of a social event at their place.

Stopped caring right here.

I've never used Spotify, I use Itunes and I buy my music from stores.

Fuck off, redwings.

ITT: Havoc is wrong.

On topic: If you don't like the spotify changes and are too cheap to pay £5/m. Suck it up. £5/m is ridiculously cheap for what it gives you.

The phrase beggars can't be choosers springs to mind.

Oh okay - £5 is reasonable. I thought they had only "Premium" on offer (which is £10 a month).

I still stand by my earlier statements about the record labels being greedy though.

Blah blah blah... poor radio station. The radio Stations agrees to pay for the song. The music industry hasn't got a gun to their head. And although it may be a good way for artists to advertise thats not how a radio station get's money, they earn from advertisements so obviously they want to put on good music to get the most listeners not some random idiot who wants them to play his song.

I used to use Last.fm a lot... But I got butthurt when they changed it so everyone but US/UK and DE citizens had to pay for their service... Dunno I found it very discriminating at the time.


I'm considering it now though. It really is a good service and it was just 3€ per month. On the other hand, I dunno if it got more expensive now.

Do none of y'all use Grooveshark?

I use last.fm but not for listening to music. I just use it to scrobble my music taste. I just think it's cool that in a few years i'll be able to go, "Shit, I listened to that back then?"

And I am unfamiliar with Grooveshark.

I just steal my music from rhapsody.

I use mediafire. I try to buy as many CD's as possible, though. When I have the money and can find it. Don't much like ordering online.