Pay for your radio?

[xports]

While driving home this afternoon, I heard a commercial over one of the local radio stations telling it's listeners to go and voice your opinions against an act that would force people to pay to listen to the radio. There was a website that they urged us to visit at the end, but I didn't catch it.

When I got home, I Googled "Pay for radio" to try and find the source of the new bill. The closest article I could find was two months old, so I'm not quite sure if it's the same bill.

Full article here.

Billy Corgan, vocalist and guitarist of the music group Smashing Pumpkins, spoke today before the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of musicFIRST, a coalition of musicians pushing for compensation when their sound recordings are broadcasted. Chairman Congressman John Conyers (D- MI)... pointed out that only four developed nations in the world do not pay musicians: The US, Iran, North Korea, and China. This, he stated, is not something we should be proud of. He predicted that sooner or later, HR 848 will become a law, and "the sooner, the better."

So Newgrounds, are you for or against this? What would you do if you had to pay to listen to the radio?

[Podburrys]

If people had to pay for radio, they WOULDN'T. Industry death.

[WeHaveFreshCookies]

It's only fair. They put the work in, they should get paid. Not extravagantly, but still paid. Musicians are getting less and less rich now that online downloads are so popular.

[Sensationalism]

That would suck, I guess I'd just depend on my ipod more. I only listen to radio during the day and that's a station that wouldn't be affected by the bill. At least I don't think it would. So I'd just not listen to the radio while riding in cars.

[yurgenburgen]

At 6/7/09 02:51 AM, xports wrote: So Newgrounds, are you for or against this? What would you do if you had to pay to listen to the radio?

I don't listen to the radio anyway, but if I did I'd simply stop listening to it. The artists having their music played are benefitting because when radio listeners hear their latest flavour-of-the-week single, they go out and buy the album. If people had to pay to hear the radio, they'd just pirate everything when they got online since they'd feel they've already paid enough to the music world.

[LynchedJohNNY]

My understanding was that musicians that got on the air won fame and respect then the mass audience that liked the song would in turn look up the artists and buy the CD. My understanding is that is how is works cause nobody on the radio is starving and broke.
I'd rather buy a CD or bootleg it to avoid commercials before I would pay for radio.

[JoSilver]

paying for radio is like paying for your local news or google... no one ever would...

[zNelson24]

No. The radio stations around my area are already commercialized enough with the 10 minute commercials, the severely overplayed American Top 40 songs, and the fact that all the statoined are owned by one company.

[ShadowDreamer7]

I don't really listen to radio anyways. This would only make people either just listen to Ipods in cars or CDs in cars instead. Which some people do anyways.

[JollySpace]

I would never pay for radio.
I have Pandora.

[ThoseSwellNachos]

Dammit, Billy Corgan. How can someone with such good music be that greedy? Look at what you have become.

[GodsBitch]

At 6/7/09 02:51 AM, xports wrote: pointed out that only four developed nations in the world do not pay musicians: The US, Iran, North Korea, and China.

Well Britain isn't a part of that list, and as far as I'm aware we don't pay to listen to the radio.

[xports]

At 6/7/09 05:05 AM, GodsBitch wrote:

At 6/7/09 02:51 AM, xports wrote: pointed out that only four developed nations in the world do not pay musicians: The US, Iran, North Korea, and China.

Well Britain isn't a part of that list, and as far as I'm aware we don't pay to listen to the radio.

Yeah, but he was only talking about developed nations.

Zoink!

Anyways, I was always under the assumption that playing a song on the radio was more or less a "break-even" deal. The artist would charge $100 every time their song was played, and the radio station would charge $100 for the three minute time slot for the artist to advertise their music.

I'm sure that if artists started charging for the right to play their music, the radio stations would find some way to charge them, and hopefully, cancel out costs.

[JKMonkey]

If people had to pay to listen to the radio, nobody would listen to the radio anymore, the fact that radio is free is the only thing stopping the radio industry from going bankrupt

[Jill40]

At first I thought it was some money grubber who wanted to make more from something that's free. (like the company that thought to charge for water.)

But after thinking about, I'm kinda netural about it. It takes much spare money to run a radio station. (I couldn't think of one who doesn't have a sponser supporting them). If it people were to be charged to listen, most likely over 80% won't listen anymore and will shutdown due to it soon low ratings.

[xports]

Here's the official page that keeps track of H.R. 848, the bill that would make us pay for the radio. As you can see, it still has to be approved by the House and the Senate.

[Andrea364]

I'm against it. We have enough shit to pay for, and I think it's time that there were some things we won't have to cough up our cash to enjoy.