Radio Companies Have Traditionally Opposed

¶ … radio companies have traditionally opposed the idea of paying royalties to record labels, conditions appear to have changed in the recent years. Big Machine Label Group has signed a deal with Clear Channel Media and Entertainment, the biggest radio firm in the U.S. with the purpose of having the radio company pay the record label performance royalties every time a radio station owned by Clear Channel plays a song sang by an artists who signed with Big Machine Label Group. While some consider that this is perfectly normal, others lobby against the practice and promote the belief that radios need to be provided with the opportunity to cooperate directly with artists.

A person who sees things from an objective point-of-view would surely consider that this deal is perfectly justified and that radio companies need to accept that it is normal to pay royalties as long as they are using products belonging to certain record labels. Even with this, the fact that radio has been typically perceived as an instrument that provides the masses with the opportunity to listen to their favorite artists for free makes it difficult for a pro-radio individual to agree to the deal. Many radio companies virtually advertise artists and record labels for free and present these respective artists and record labels with the chance to be heard by a diverse public.

It is surely to determine whether or not the deal is rational, but my opinion is that label records need to focus of the free publicity that they are receiving and to try and understand that selling their products to radios is likely to draw lesser fans for their artists. The deal indirectly produces a wave of favoritism as particular artists are going to receive less publicity because radio companies are going to impose tougher legislations. Also, the masses will have access to a less diverse range of artists as long as radio companies continue to make such deals.

James Kanter's article "Europe Opens New Microsoft Inquiry" provides readers with the chance to observe how Microsoft sometimes tends to design "in-your-face" commercial campaigns. The European Commission has expressed interest in penalizing Microsoft as a result of its failure to implement a program that would no longer force numerous Windows users to use Internet Explorer. The fact that Microsoft does not provide its users with the chance to choose what browser they want to use when opening their computers for the first time generated much controversy and irritated a great deal of people who are unsatisfied with Internet Explorer's functionality. Even with the fact that Microsoft immediately addressed the issue, its actions influenced a great deal of individuals to express lesser interest in the company's products.

The European Commission is right in criticizing Microsoft for its actions, considering that the company failed to provide a complex system of options that its users could utilize with the purpose of deciding what browser they want to choose. Even with the fact that it seems perfectly natural for the company to express interest in promoting its products through Windows, it seems unfair to deny users the chance to be informed in regard to how other browsers might fit their needs better.

This article fails to provide a complex account regarding the number of users who have been negatively affected as a consequence of Microsoft's actions. If the general public were to be acquainted with the effects that Microsoft's actions had on the masses people would have a better understanding of what it means to be limited to a single Internet browser.

Microsoft's strategies are likely to reflect negatively on society, considering that the company is practically denying other companies the right to serve their users. In spite of the fact that other browsers are likely to fit the needs of some users better, these respective individuals have not have the opportunity to actually understand this. Society needs to be a place where the best products need to be promoted and openly displayed in order for the masses to be able to differentiate between some products and others.

Although some people might feel nostalgic when regarding the importance of concepts such as television and newspapers, the truth is that technology is rapidly advancing and these two mediums are limited in providing the public with the information that it wants. Palla Dragan's article "Is the End of Newspapers and TV Really Coming?" discusses in regard to this topic and makes it possible for people to comprehend that the contemporary society no longer has place for newspapers and television. As a result the internet is entering the arena and it starts to replace these mediums through providing online television and news.

It would be absurd for someone to claim that the digital age did not affect all aspects of society. The world is rapidly progressing as a consequence of the wide range of technologies that have become available in the recent years and more and more individuals turn to the internet as an alternative to television and newspapers. As a consequence, it seems perfectly normal for a particular company to want to merge these two with the purpose of creating websites providing users with a complex range of options. I agree with this merger because there is only one way to go when considering technology. Progress is the key to success and it would be futile and cost-inefficient to continue to support concepts like conventional television and newspapers. The internet makes it possible for users to have internet, television, newspapers, and a series of other mediums in a single concept.