One clue should be that recently IE had a breach so bad that the government had to issue warnings to use another browser. Explorer is only for people too stupid not to use it. Probably the same idiots that click on unknown email attachments, log in from a a phishing message and fill in their account number, social security and mother's maiden name.
California and then separately for the other 49 states. And also separately with each label and sometimes even with individual artists. Public over the air radio stations pay one simple fee that covers everything. They want to force this licensing nightmare to try to squeeze more money out of new innovators. Exposure in any form is promotion for them that leads to more sales. They should make the process easier and charge reasonable fees to help new innovations thrive, not blackmailing them into bankruptcy.
Certain songs?!! We're talking about every song up to my 20th birthday. The very foundations that inspired millions of works since then. So, no Elvis, Buddy Holly, Beatles, Hendrix, Sinatra, early Stones, Doors, Beach Boys etc? Rock was born in the 50's, not 1972.
For the most part musicians aren't the ones getting paid. The labels have a long history of keeping most of the profits. I grew up in the 60's and many big stars died in poverty, especially the black ones.
How often do you hear any of these A-list artist's tracks used in movies and TV series? I was shocked when I actually heard a real Beatles song on "Mad Men". This series must have struck some special deal to use so many original hits because most of the time all you hear are covers and lesser known artists. "The Sopranos" are one of the few other exceptions. CSI uses The Who for a theme but very few other well known artists. The big hits are mostly priced out of the market. When "Married With Children" came out on DVD most seasons used a "sounds like" instrumental theme because a 50 year old song by a long dead Frank Sinatra was too expensive to license.
Yes, the demographic shifts but that does not mean today's young people cannot enjoy the music of my youth. Before I retired some of my coworkers were barely out of their teens. I found that many black young people were big fans of the great Motown stars of the 60's. When I would ask them why they would tell me that their parents and grandparents played it for them all the time as they grew up. Perhaps blacks are just better at passing on their culture.
The extent they have gone to with YouTube is ridiculous. I became a fan of the Ukrainian artist Assol after discovering her on YouTube. I posted an hour long concert video of her and soon it was blocked in Germany. At first I couldn't figure out why and then I discovered that in a 30 second segment between songs some dancers performed to a German artist. Perhaps this might give them some tiny claim to monetize it, but instead they just blocked it completely. Thanks to the internet I can enjoy some incredible music even though I can't understand a word of Russian. I bought one of her CDs, a sale they would have not made if she was blocked in the US.
Just like the hypocrisy of the German news outlets when Google eliminated all but the headlines from their listings. Google did not go far enough. They should have completely blocked Germany from their listings and taken down all German artists from YouTube. Close out all German Gmail accounts too.
I was a teenager in the 60's and The Turtles were one of my favorite bands. They had several great hits and I'm sure they earned millions for the labels. I have to wonder in the nearly 50 years since then if they have brought in a tiny fraction of that since they fell of the charts. Ask anyone under 40 if they ever heard of them. In my days the labels realized correctly that airplay=sales and there was the payola scandal where they were paying DJ's to put recordings in the rotation. Because of their greed now some really great music will fade into oblivion and never make them another dime. Just another example of copyright destroying culture. Even the oldies stations are phasing out the 60's. There will be no new fans for most of the music of my era. When my son was in his teens in the late 90's I shared my CD's with him and he became a fan of many of the same bands from when I was that age. Much of it will not be public domain until my great grandchildren are in their 50's.
Is this going to require that they tape over the brand names on the toilets and urinals like at the Olympics? Where does it stop? Will they make everyone leave behind any cell phones, watches, shoes, clothing with logos etc. that are not sponsors when they enter the clean zone? This would even be too extreme for the TSA.
News organizations compete with each other to make the big scoop and this causes them to jump to conclusions before the details are fully confirmed. Once the first news channel or paper takes the risk everyone else jumps in and reports the same sketchy story. This has led to many sources wrongly reporting the death of a celebrity or spreading spoof news stories and making asses of themselves.
You would think that the nation that first bravely stood alone against the Nazis would not adopt the same kind of censorship that Hitler used. What's next, jailing reporters the government doesn't like? Who gets to determine who is extreme? There can be no democracy without freedom of speech. Are government agents going to be scouring every Facebook and twitter post?
I have to partially retract some of this. Upon doing some reading I found that Jimi did get violent when he was drinking and using drugs and was arrested several times. Still, couldn't they just portray what really happened instead of just making one up?
I just have to wonder what is wrong with taking the life of an interesting person and making an interesting movie about it. It is indeed rare to find a film about an historical person or event that is even remotely accurate. Do they really have to turn a brilliant musical icon into a violent abuser when it just never happened? I find that offensive and an insult to my intelligence. It doesn't have to be a documentary to just make a movie at least close to reality. Maybe the Hendrix family would have been more open to license his music if they hadn't portrayed him as a monster.
The outrageous fees the big name artists charge is a boon for lesser known artists. A friend I grew up with, Gerard McMahon (records under the name G Tom Mac) has had his music featured in dozens of hit movies and TV shows since the 80's. He's best known for the song "Cry Little Sister" from the movie Lost Boys. He has a considerable fan base all from this exposure. He has written and performed with artists like Chicago, Kiss, Roger Daltery and many others. He has millions of YouTube hits. I'm sure he doesn't get anywhere near what A-list artists charge in licensing fees and that is why his songs are used so much. I'm betting he makes as much or even more than better known artists by the quantity of his work being bought. The list on Wikipedia is nowhere near complete. Most of the music you hear on TV and movies are from artists like him. Why pay millions for a Michael Jackson or the Rolling Stones track when you can get great music for a fraction of their rates?
I've been burned more than a few time when I heard a great song on the radio and went out and bought the CD and realized it was the only good song on it. On Rhapsody you can hear a song before you decide to buy it.
I'm already a fan since I was 12. I had everything they ever recorded on vinyl and nearly everything now on CD. For a long time there have not been a lot of new fans because their music is too expensive to be heard much beyond my generation. I wonder which would be more profitable for the copyright holders; A few million on the very rare occasions a movie or TV show are willing to spend that much or millions more fans. Exposure = sales.
It is amazing the the most revolutionary rock band in history is so limited in finding new fans. Similar to this, the movie "Backbeat" could only use songs the Beatles covered because they could not afford any Lennon/McCartney songs. When the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" used "Twist and Shout" it became a hit again 20 years after it first charted. How many new fans and 2nd hits could there be if movies and TV could afford to license their songs? I subscribe to Rhapsody and when I did a search for the Beatles all that came up out of the hundreds of their recordings was a few early album tracks and the work they did with Tony Sheridan. They could have paying customers downloading that instead will choose to pirate. My great grandchildren will be in their mid 50's when they are public domain.