The lawsuit sounds like grandstanding to me. The way I understand this issue is you have all the various entities like publisher, label, composer and performer all trying to get what they feel they want from whoever they can get to pay it. Radio is a nice scapegoat. Funny thing is, while other options for 'breaking' an artist are available, radio is still a major factor. To bring any of this to reality leaves artist, publisher, composer and label out in the cold from one of the major outlets of exposure that make them money.
If the 'threat' became reality, artists would be dropped or stations might begin charging their going airtime rate for play or even for announcing song title and artist. It has been said a dog will not bite the hand that feeds it. While radio is not the only hand feeding, it is an important part of the mix. Enough so to affect the revenue potential of the complaining entity. After all, it is all about money.
My thought is nothing will change. We have to realize lawyers are running the show. The art of lawyering is to think outside the box and create scenarios that win cases for clients that seem to be long shots. Since success of the lawyer is winning for their client, the better you can prove yourself to be at making the 'left field' suit get decided in your favor, the better the attorney. Comparing it to radio, it is the same left field thinking and having success much like the creation of the top 40 format or the Jack styled format of recent years. In TV it is comparable to CNN. When CNN was launched the industry said it would never work. There were many skeptics when MTV was launched as well. So, while these left field attempts worked for media, the number that did not is incredible. The more left field you get, like the proposed suit, the better the chances become you'll be struck by lighting before you see success with that left field suit. At least for the lawyers involved, they don't have to win the suit to win in their field because demonstrating the left field thinking to justify the suit is the cake. A win is the icing on top.
If the 'threat' became reality, artists would be dropped or stations might begin charging their going airtime rate for play or even for announcing song title and artist. It has been said a dog will not bite the hand that feeds it. While radio is not the only hand feeding, it is an important part of the mix. Enough so to affect the revenue potential of the complaining entity. After all, it is all about money.
My thought is nothing will change. We have to realize lawyers are running the show. The art of lawyering is to think outside the box and create scenarios that win cases for clients that seem to be long shots. Since success of the lawyer is winning for their client, the better you can prove yourself to be at making the 'left field' suit get decided in your favor, the better the attorney. Comparing it to radio, it is the same left field thinking and having success much like the creation of the top 40 format or the Jack styled format of recent years. In TV it is comparable to CNN. When CNN was launched the industry said it would never work. There were many skeptics when MTV was launched as well. So, while these left field attempts worked for media, the number that did not is incredible. The more left field you get, like the proposed suit, the better the chances become you'll be struck by lighting before you see success with that left field suit. At least for the lawyers involved, they don't have to win the suit to win in their field because demonstrating the left field thinking to justify the suit is the cake. A win is the icing on top.
