backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 28 comment(s) - last by dluther.. on Jul 19 at 12:16 AM
SoundExchange puts a stop on its royalty hike and decides to hash a new plan with webcasters

Several days ago, DailyTech reported the online radio industry was about to meet its end when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put a stop on a new royalty scheme. Championed by SoundExchange, the new royalty scheme increases money flow for artists and labels.

Despite the court decision to go ahead with the new scheme, SoundExchange announced the new royalty scheme will be postponed, without any indication it will be continued. According to SoundExchange Executive Director Jon Simson, the group is in debate with online radio stations on an alternative plan, one that will allow them to continue their operation while compensating artists and labels.

The outcry by online radio stations was heard several weeks ago when a large number of stations banded together to protest against SoundExchange. While the government in large ignored the complaints, SoundExchange did listen -- even though it was the last entity on any stations' mind that would listen.

Pandora, one of the four largest online radio companies was one of many stations that took a stance against SoundExchange. Pandora founder Tim Westergren said users who called into Congress to voice against the changes all helped.

"This is a direct result of lobbying pressure, so if anyone thinks their call didn't matter, it did. That's why this is happening," said Westergren in a blog on Listening Post.

SoundExchange said it will now work closely with webcasters, large and small to form a new plan.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
only in america
By rika13 on 7/16/2007 7:48:27 PM , Rating: 4
if the stations really wanted to, they just jump the border to canada; they then are under canadian law (many americans flee to canada), or mexico (who doesnt care), or russia (big sharing culture there due to communism), or turkey (who REALLY doesnt care), or sweden (who has a piracy political party), or romania (entire IT industry based on pirated windows, and a president who gladly admitted it directly to gates' face), etc.

its the internet, if you dont like a country's laws, there is always another country with better laws




RE: only in america
By TomZ on 7/16/2007 8:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's not really that practical, especially for the smaller operators, who may already live in the U.S. and have families that would have to be uprooted. Anyway, it is generally unreasonable that someone should have to move out of the U.S. in order to make a reasonable living.


RE: only in america
By theapparition on 7/17/2007 7:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly,
And what of the operators who do this as a labor of love, and have never tried to make a profit?


RE: only in america
By xsilver on 7/16/2007 9:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
russia (big sharing culture there due to communism)


What the hell?
its like saying move to america (lots of guns there due to rednecks)

just because 1 exists doesnt cause the other.

however for those that have seen the new michael moore movie "sicko" its just like a visit canada tourism ad. "come one come all, we have free health cover" lol


RE: only in america
By TomZ on 7/16/2007 9:28:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
however for those that have seen the new michael moore movie "sicko" its just like a visit canada tourism ad. "come one come all, we have free health cover" lol

I like some of Michael Moore's work, but SICKO is pretty off-base. His criticism of the U.S. health care system is probably deserved, but his "solution" of "free, universal health care for everyone" is not a solution at all. Canada is held up as an example of a system that works, but that's not exactly the reality.

While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

In most countries with "universal healthcare," many families are choosing to purchase additional health insurance to cover all the gaps left by the government-run programs.

Let's hope we have some improvement in the U.S. in this area, but "universal healthcare" is not a solution - it's a recipe for mediocrity.


RE: only in america
By Furen on 7/17/2007 12:13:12 AM , Rating: 5
I find it funny how you chose to quote "Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive"... People in the US get massive bills for their medical care (lots of bankruptcies because of this), never mind the medicines needed to survive, even "mediocre" healthcare would be better for these people than no healthcare at all, or a mediocre HMO that doesn't cover them when they actually need it. I still don't understand why, exactly, a "free" (tax-payer supported) universal healthcare system would be mediocre... the VA is anything but mediocre and the government has an iron grip on it. The only problem with the VA, as I see it, is that it lacks the funding necessary to be outstanding (more money would equal more doctors, more hospitals, etc).

A few months ago I cut myself while cooking, so I called my doctor to try to set up an "emergency" appointment, he said he was swamped with work and that I should get care through emergency. So I went to the ER, waited for something like an hour while bleeding to death (well, not really), and ended up getting 4 stitches. The bill, $2,400. Hell, when I saw that I actually called my insurance company and asked if they were actually going to pay that highway-robbery price. They said that's pretty much in line with what they're usually charged.

Do you think that this is a much better system than the "mediocre" health care systems in other countries? I am fully insured yet had to wait for an hour for a rather simple "intervention"--and my insurance was charged $2.4k for the privilege. Heck, a few years ago I was in Mexico and split my forehead (no bone damage). I was rushed to a red cross hospital, waited for 10 minutes and was then under the care of a very skittish intern (very cute, too, but it's hard to make a pass on someone when you're bleeding). She did local anesthesia and 7 stitches in something like 20 minutes. Afterwards, when I tried paying for the service, I was told that it was free but I could give a donation, so I donated 50 bucks and was gone in about 30 minutes. Sure, I suppose being taken care of by an unsupervised intern would qualify as "mediocre" but hell, I was satisfied with the service, it was speedy and I didn't feel robed afterwards.


RE: only in america
By cscpianoman on 7/17/2007 8:38:28 AM , Rating: 3
The emergency room is not run on a first come first serve basis. It is done by the level of the emergency. The nurse looks at the severity of the injury and places the individual on the wait list accordingly. Is it right? No. But it has to be done because there are not enough ER doctors to take care of everyone. As a hemophiliac, I know the general rule is to not make a hemophiliac wait, for obvious reasons. If I wait an hour with a nasty cut, I would bleed to death.


RE: only in america
By TomZ on 7/17/2007 9:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
The healthcare system in the U.S. is the best in the world. You can't judge the "big picture" quality using anecdotes - you have to look at statistics. This is the same mistake that Michael Moore makes in his movie. It is also a way to manipulate when you show the worst of one system and compare that with the best of another system. Is that a valid comparison? No.

I don't believe that "free healthcare" should be given to every person. Same for free food, free cars, free housing, free money, etc. - all at taxpayer expense. That is a valid way to do things (works for Cuba), just not the way America does things. In America, you need to earn all these things, including your healthcare. Healthcare is available to everyone in America - you just have to earn it.

If you think that trashing out the current medical system due to its flaws makes sense, then you just need to look at the system in Canada as well as the VA hospitals that you mention. Probably a national healthcare system in the U.S. would be somewhere betweeen those two. Is that the type of system you want? I sure don't.


RE: only in america
By fic2 on 7/17/2007 1:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The healthcare system in the U.S. is the best in the world. You can't judge the "big picture" quality using anecdotes - you have to look at statistics.


You say the U.S. is #1 and you imply that is from statistics. Where are your statistics? According to the World Healthcare Organization the U.S. ranks 37th. Canada is #30, France #1.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html


RE: only in america
By Targon on 7/18/2007 7:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
Right now, free health care is given to most illegal immigrants because they go to the hospital with no insurance, put down false information in the hospital, and then disappear. This is due to the law in many states that hospitals may not turn away patients for any reason.


RE: only in america
By andrew on 7/17/2007 9:18:03 AM , Rating: 3
no such thing as "free" healthcare... anywhere in the world... live in England for a year and see how you like going to the dr... those that can afford to buy extra health insurance do so because they can get into the see the dr on a timely basis, see a specialist, etc... it can take weeks to get a dental appt without extra insurance...

the reality is that you're taxed at about 40% of your income and about 30-35% of those taxes goes to pay for your healthcare... not "free" just hidden...


RE: only in america
By jskirwin on 7/17/2007 9:33:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the reality is that you're taxed at about 40% of your income and about 30-35% of those taxes goes to pay for your healthcare... not "free" just hidden...


Exactly. While I support universal health care, I don't think that most people who do realize how big their tax bill is going to jump.


RE: only in america
By Furen on 7/17/2007 5:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
I never said it would be "free," I know this beast would be tax supported. I'm currently taxed at 35% of my income so if an extra 5% would get everyone in the States healthcare then be my guest and take it. I would ceirtainly get more satisfaction from providing my fellow americans with healthcare than I do from subsidizing "farmers", oil companies and Halliburton. Also, close the gaping carried-interest loophole so I don't feel like I'm getting raped while Schwarzman gets taxed at a comfy 15% rate because he invests other people 's money.

Having basic healthcare for everyone will ultimately lower the drain on the system because people will be get preventive healthcare which is much cheaper than the healthcare that is provided to people once they're collapsing on the streets, not to mention that mortality rates would also decrease. I also believe that medical regulations need to be relaxed a bit (for example, allowing nurses to provide some basic emergency services) in order to make medical services more expedient and cheaper than they currently are. Also, cap the hell out of malpractice suits (with the possible exception of gross negligence resulting in death/permanent damage).


RE: only in america
By porkpie on 7/17/2007 10:29:05 AM , Rating: 2
In any country with 'free' healthcare, the people pay just as much for it as we do here in America. The cost is just hidden from them in taxes.

And in ALL those countries, the people who can afford it, buy better healthcare elsewhere...often coming to the US itself. That says it all right there.


RE: only in america
By dude on 7/18/2007 1:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
Remember the story about the woman who died in the hospital ER? They wouldn't take care of her unless she goes outside and calls 911 something stupid like that, which was what, if memory serves me right, the hospital staff or the arresting officer told her (yes, the hospital was going to arrest her for lying about her condition!).

Personally, I've experienced a little over an hour wait when my contact lens ripped when I rubbed my eye, and was just waiting and waiting why my eye was bloodshot red and tearing all the while.

Then, my friend, which I rushed to the ER, had to wait almost 2 hours (!) while he was coughing blood all over the ER floor! This is Jefferson Hospital, supposedly one of the best in the country!


RE: only in america
By fic2 on 7/17/2007 1:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canada is held up as an example of a system that works, but that's not exactly the reality.

While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.


Your saying that healthcare in Canada doesn't work, but 80% are satified with it? So, 80% say it works - sounds like it works. I wonder what percentage of the U.S. population is satisfied with their healthcare (assuming they have it).

I can't believe that people in Canada have to wait for elective surgery. <sarcasm>I think everyone should be able to get a nose job when they want it and not have to wait.</sarcasm>


RE: only in america
By Azzr34l on 7/18/2007 1:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
Ha ha. I love all the armchair economists and health care policy makers.

Yeah socialized, universal health care is wonderful...when you're healthy! Canada, England? Yeah, right. My wife's best friend married a Brit and she had to wait 7 months for a lumpectomy on a tumor diagnosed as malignant because of the wait time. You can close your eyes or try and ignore reality and wave your nation's healthcare flag all you want, but given the choice, I'll pay 3 times as much for timely (generally speaking) healthcare services.

The US's healthcare system needs work, but it needs it from the ground up. You people really think the drivers of high healthcare costs are your HMOs? LOL, you obviously have no clue about the current state of healthcare affairs in the US. The vast majority of publicly traded healthcare companies in the US are currently operating in the single digits for profit margins. If you don't already know that's slim margins, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

You ever wonder why you're getting a $2,400 bill for 4 sutures? Doesn't that seem slightly high? Duh! Hospitals are one of the largest drivers of increased healthcare costs in the US. Prescription drug costs anyone? American's subsidize the rest of the entire world on prescription drugs because Big Pharma has it's pocketbooks stuck so deep in our congressional leaders @sses, they can't find their way out. The pharmaceutical companies have already lobbied Congress under open testimony that if the US implemented Federal price caps on domestically sold drugs, it would have a "so-called" devastating effect on their R&D and pipeline efforts. Yeah, they mean it would effect their marketing efforts, which has vastly outpaced their R&D expenses over the last 5 years.

When was the last time you saw a doctor in the US that lived in a trailer park?

Give me a f!@king break. The suppliers of healthcare are murdering Americans on their healthcare costs - it's not nearly as much to do with the method of delivery or financing of the care as it is the suppliers of it.


RE: only in america
By dluther on 7/19/2007 12:16:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.


I've got to say, that's one of the funniest, yet saddest comments on Canada's health care system. Have you ever heard of these so-called "cheap Canadian prescriptions"? The VA sure has.

First of all, most people posting on this board have some form of health care coverage in the form of an employer-subsidized HMO, PPO, vision, and/or dental plan, and for the majority of people, this kind of coverage is adequate, with the occasional issue that is inherent in this form of health care plan.

However, while *I* have a health care plan, my parents are not so lucky. They make just enough money to not be covered by Medicare, and since my father works for the State of Oklahoma, the price of family care is very expensive with the individual contribution topping $500 monthly, which is far too much to pay on an annual salary of $45K.

My mother has rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and her monthly medical expenses are very, very high. Coupled with care from a rheumatologist, medical expenses are near $1200 per month. Prescriptions like Embrel are very expensive, and the pain medication she uses is morphine, which is also hugely expensive. Embrel also has some nasty side effects, which contribute to even further medical expenses.

Since this is a pre-existing condition now, even if Dad got family medical coverage, any expenses related to Mom's RA would not be covered for a period of 10 years.

Basically, my mother and father are living off a charitable grant from myself and other family members. They have two options at this point: Dad can retire from his job and they would be somewhat covered under Medicare. But Dad's a proud man, and welfare to him would be anathema. They could also move to Canada, or some other country that has "universal health care", but you can probably imagine how realistic that looks.

So when you say that others who criticize the health care system in America are "off base", remember that it's because your point of view is somewhat biased because what you have is probably working for you and your family.

Everybody hears about those unfortunate individuals who are "too rich" to get free care, but "too poor" to pay for insurance; you know, the ones that "fall between the cracks". Unfortunately, it appears that many of you do not actually have a living, personal connection to that, so it's as real to you as say, starving children in Africa; in other words, since it doesn't affect you, you simply dismiss it out of hand.

So I'm here to put a little balance to the discussion, simply because I see the part you don't want to.


RE: only in america
By DJMiggy on 7/17/2007 1:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Moving out of the country isn't a solution at all. A lot of us have jobs other then our hourly, daily, weekly webcasts.

I personally am not in it for the money. I lose money if anything. I don't charge anyone for anything. I don't advertise. In fact I have never made real money from it. I just play music for folks who seem to enjoy it. There are a ton who DJ for fun. Its like throwing a party every weekend. I get a lot of the same listeners and we get to know each other and build relationships. It can be a wonderful thing.


A Miracle? I think not.
By papabear27 on 7/16/2007 6:12:44 PM , Rating: 5
While this is certainly a boon for online radio, this does not surprise me in the slightest. This is a good, old-fashioned case of "Get That Money". Had SoundExchange gone ahead with it's plan and internet stations shut down en masse, a huge portion of potential income would be gone. It's a time honored principle of business; Better to get less money than none.




RE: A Miracle? I think not.
By TomZ on 7/16/2007 6:15:52 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. It is also a negiotiating tactic whereby you threaten to put all your customers out of business, and then at the last minute, you decide to "save" them. Then at the negiotiating table, you have a lot of leverage, since many of these businesses had already visualized their own demise. It leaves them much more willing to pay.

SoundExchange is pretty brutal. I hope what goes around, comes around.


RE: A Miracle? I think not.
By hubajube on 7/16/2007 7:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
SoundExchange must actually need that revenue if they're willing to negotiate at all (last minute or not) otherwise they would've let the stations die on the vine. The stations still have some leverage here as they can just bail out of the negotiations if things don't their way. Granted that means their demise but better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees.


RE: A Miracle? I think not.
By TomZ on 7/16/2007 7:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
They need the revenue from the big online radio stations, the AOL's, MSN's, etc. The revenue from the little guys probably doesn't total up to much, at least for now. But it's not too hard to imagine how, in the future, you could see a much larger number of smaller stations.

Small plug - my favorite station is http://www.woxy.com.


RE: A Miracle? I think not.
By Emryse on 7/17/2007 2:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree with you more.

Fact of the matter is:

1.) They were greedy.

2.) They bluffed.

3.) Internet radio stations called their bluff.

4.) They caved.

Although they state they're going to work on a new plan to create a "fair compensation" for artists represented, the truth is that this is clearly a case of "what the market was willing to bear".

They have absolutely no negotiating power whatsoever now - either they accomodate the current profits they recieve from this industry, or they destroy the industry. I only wish this scenario could be replicated in the fight on-going between the RAB and similar greed-driven representation groups.


I don't mean to spark a political debate, but...
By ryedizzel on 7/16/2007 7:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
I am a regular listener of online radio (mostly DI.fm) and I was one of the people that actually took their time to contact their local senators on the day of the silence. I'm happy to see SoundExchange supposedly listened, yet saddened to see the government as a whole ignored it. Makes you doubt that we truly live in a democratic country that run by "the people".




By novacthall on 7/16/2007 10:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not to be a nitpick, but the US is a republic. Your representatives are democratically elected, but the country is run by the elected few. Ideally, the representatives are run by "the people" (making the country run by the people by proxy), but it doesn't always work out that way.

On topic, good for you for contacting your representative. You went a lot farther than most.


By theapparition on 7/17/2007 7:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, very few realize that we are not governed by democracy. We are, a democratic republic.

Good for contacting your local representatives. I sent letters as well. I've never listened to online radio, but think they should be governed by the same agreements as terrestrial radio and satelite.


By DJMiggy on 7/16/2007 6:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wow they are actually listening. This is awesome as I don't know what I would do if I had to stop broadcasting my Friday shows.

DJ Miggy




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki