It's a chicken-or-egg question: should music games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band pay royalties to music labels, or should it be the other way around? Well, music games wouldn't be as fun if they don't have songs from popular artists. But then, music labels wouldn't sell as many albums as they are now if it weren't for music games.

This issue is currently what execs of Activision Blizzard and Warner Music are debating over. Warner's chief Edgar Bronfman recently described royalties from game companies as "paltry." In fact, he adds that they should charge the music games more because they are "entirely dependent" on licensed music.

Activision Blizzard's CEO Robert Kotick, on the other hand, disagrees (of course). In case you didn't know, Activision is the company behind the hit Guitar Hero franchise. Kotick counters Warner by saying that music games boost sales of albums. He also adds that they are not entirely dependent on music labels, saying that:

We have lots of music to choose from, lots of artists to choose from. A 12-year-old kid has no idea who Steven Tyler is or who Aerosmith is.

In fact, Kotick went so far as to say that music companies should consider paying game companies royalties:

When you look at the impact [Guitar Hero] can have on an Aerosmith, Van Halen or Metallica, it's really significant. So much so that you sort of question whether or not, in the case of those kinds of products, you should be paying any money at all and whether it should be the reverse.

So who owes who? Personally, I think that game companies should pay music labels royalties for the right to choose which songs to add to the game, while music labels should pay game companies if they want to plug certain songs or artists. But that's just my opinion. What's your take on it?

---

Related Articles:

• Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock boosts digital music sales
• Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock boosts album sales