Well, cable TV used to be "piracy" when it rebroadcast over-the-air stations. Then they got a compulsory license written into law (17 USC 111). Doesn't seem to have destroyed the networks.
And, once upon a time, record labels paid radio stations to get songs on the air. That was outlawed, but it does show that what's considered "normal" now wasn't always, and might not be in the future.
And, once upon a time, record labels paid radio stations to get songs on the air. That was outlawed...
Maybe this needs to be reversed. I'm sure there are some smaller labels who would be more than happy to pay the stations to get some of their tunes on the air.
Frankly, I think it's preposterous that it was outlawed to begin with, and the ramifications are clear: the only songs that get playtime are the songs that are "known" and the only songs that are "known" are the songs big enough to have a big label behind them. And since smaller players can't pay the stations to play their unknown artists, the big labels are able to make unreasonable demands on the stations because the alternative[1] is outlawed.
Note: the entirety of this comment is hinged around the assumption of validity of the quoted comment, I've not verified if this is true or not, I simply took the claim as true and ran with it.
[1] That is, the alternative method that would generate a profit, specifically, taking money from labels wishing to promote their artists, in exchange for the possible loss of listeners. When less listeners = less advertising dollars, the loss of revenue needs to be subsidized elsewhere, and accepting money from smaller labels (or even the artists themselves), is an obvious way to subsidize that.
> Maybe this needs to be reversed. I'm sure there are some smaller labels who would be more than happy to pay the stations to get some of their tunes on the air.
You're assuming an interesting relationship between the "current resources" and the "should play" curves.
Each radio station has a fairly fixed amount of "play time" and there aren't that many radio stations. I think that it's reasonably likely that "big music" would buy up all the time worth buying at prices that the little guy couldn't match.
Note - I'm not saying such restrictions are a good thing, I'm just saying that it's not a choice between happy unicorns and ugly trolls.
Of course, "big music" already does use various forms of "not money" to "promote" their folk. Play the game, and you get phone interviews, early release, special versions with local flavor, and some free tix to a concert that is going to be sold out no matter what your radio station does. That can't be matched by a smaller label, let alone some genius in a garage.
I think that it's reasonably likely that "big music" would buy up all the time worth buying at prices that the little guy couldn't match.
And that would immediately solve this problem of the stations having to pay the label. That would introduce competition where competition is currently outlawed.
And, once upon a time, record labels paid radio stations to get songs on the air. That was outlawed, but it does show that what's considered "normal" now wasn't always, and might not be in the future.