backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by NYNoodle.. on Jul 23 at 10:48 AM

Increased royalty fees may force some internet radio stations to shut down

Over the last year, the online music industry has been in what many call as a major shakeup. Music artists and labels represented by SoundExchange say they are being treated unfairly, receiving less than a fair amount of money being generated by online radio stations. SoundExchange has been lobbying Congress over the last year to force online radio stations to pay for or pay higher royalties for songs played.

Working closely with Congress, SoundExchange has successfully convinced the industry that increased royalties are a necessity. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to put a stop on increased royalties. This Sunday, Internet radio stations will be slapped with a bill forcing them to pay higher royalties going forward and pay for music aired in 2006. By 2010, royalty rates will nearly triple what stations currently pay. Stations will also incur an annual fee of $500, but the annual fee hasn't been fully worked out. SoundExchange is unsure if it wants stations to pay $500 per station or per channel.

"This is just about the artists getting paid fairly. Artists and labels just want a fair share of the pie," said Richard Ades, a SoundExchange representative.

Late last month, many online stations banded together for a single day of silence, marking their stance against SoundExchange and its demands. Called "Day of Silence," the move created public awareness about how damaging the new proposed royalties could be. Despite the demonstration, SoundExchange chief executive John Simson said, the "rates are fair."

Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora, one of the largest Internet radio companies, said, although his company is able to pay for the new royalties he and his company would not go down without a fight. Pandora along with Yahoo, Rhapsody and Live365 represent the four largest Internet radio companies today. Whether large or small, all types of broadcasters will be affected. SoundExchange said it has taken this into account. Small and non-profit broadcasters will have a royalty cap of $50,000 per year -- still a very large amount.

"Nobody wins when Internet radio gets shut down, including artists who ostensibly are being represented by SoundExchange, the organization pushing for high rates. It's ironic. If SoundExchange gets their way, it means less money for musicians because people will cease to pay royalties all together," Westergren said.

Even with the cap, small broadcasters are still in distress. Michael Clark, owner of two small stations said that after Sunday, he would owe roughly $14,000 USD just for the holiday season of 2007. As for all the music that his station broadcasted during the 2006 year, Clark will owe $8000 on Sunday. One of Clark's stations already closed down because of the new changes and he was unsure of what to do after Sunday, he said.

Jake Sommers, owner of a similarly small station that plays jazz faced similar decisions and consequently closed down his station. Jazzplayradio.com closed on April 30th of this year when Sommers realized he would have to pay $2000 per month to keep his station of 20,000 listeners afloat.

"We never made a dime. It was a labor of love. Everything we made we put right back into radio station. It was a bunch of trumpet geeks playing music for other trumpet geeks," Sommers said.

As Patty Smyth once sang, "sometimes love just ain't enough."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Many of you are TOTALLY incorrect on the rates
By adam00 on 7/15/2007 6:57:02 PM , Rating: 4
Excuse me, but many of you are spreading ignorant misinformation on the rates.

It is NOT $.10 per song, it is actually $.0011 per song
NOT 1/10th of a dollar, but about 1/10th of a penny. Get your facts straight before you spread stupidity.

That said, I still don't like the deal because I generally disagree with collective bargaining regardless of its form. I dislike it when corporations create a monopoly on goods and I dislike it when labor unions create a monopoly with a workforce. Both lead to a bargaining position so imbalanced that the courts have to be involved. Remove the monopoly and the market could solve the problems without millions of our tax dollars spent on judiciary proceedings.

Just my $.02, or perhaps my $.0011 :)




By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 9:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the rate hasn't been set yet. I was using an example of $.10 as many were assuming that was the rate after doing the math from the comment in the article. I also asked if they were taking into account the yearly fees and hosting services.
Plus, if you read what they want to charge, it goes to: 2010: $0.0019 per performance. You are correct, it's not $.10 per song, yet.


RE: Many of you are TOTALLY incorrect on the rates
By adam00 on 7/15/2007 10:12:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
$0.0019 per performance. You are correct, it's not $.10 per song, yet.


that's like saying the cost of a honda accord isn't $1 million, yet. true, its going to .0019, which means people were only off by a factor of 50 instead of 100. :)

People were wrong because somebody saw .1 of a cent, and thought it meant .1 of a dollar. why? because most people either can't or don't read very well.

it also kind of ruins the whole "end of internet radio!!!" argument. now, that doesn't make the fee correct/fair, especially considering the fact that am/fm pays no royalties to performers. but to say that it will kill internet radio is silly.

internet radio may change slightly. maybe the fee gets passed onto us, maybe we have some ads tossed our way, or maybe they take themselves offshore. and we can all argue abt whether that is right/fair - but this whole "day of silence" crap is nonsense.

ps. even if the fee is passed onto the end user, how much will it really cost? i mean, $1 gets you 909 songs... true, some would say that taking a nickel isn't right. that's fine, but some people are acting like its the end of the world.


By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 11:09:12 PM , Rating: 1
If you read the article and the posts, people were taking this: $2000 per month to keep his station of 20,000 listeners afloat. They came up with $.10 per song.
that's like saying the cost of a honda accord isn't $1 million, yet. true, its going to .0019, which means people were only off by a factor of 50 instead of 100. :)
I understand this but remember the fees have NOT been set yet. We don't know where they will be.
ps. even if the fee is passed onto the end user, how much will it really cost? i mean, $1 gets you 909 songs... true, some would say that taking a nickel isn't right. that's fine, but some people are acting like its the end of the world. Well, grab your calculator. There is an estimated 50 million listeners on the internet. Remember the rates: Per song Per listener . 50 million times the max proposed 2010 rate of $.00019 = $9500.00. Now, multiply this by the amount of songs they listen to per day. Estimate 6 songs per hour(low estimate) = 144 in 24 hours. 144 x $9500.00 = $1,368,000. That's per day. Now multiply that by 365 = $499,320,000.00 per year. Tack on the proposed $500 per stream, the bandwidth costs, software costs, buying music, equipment costs and man hour costs and no, it sure isn't a lot of money. Even a small station, say 20,000 listeners will pay in fees: $199,728.00, plus the proposed $500 per stream, the bandwidth costs, software costs, buying music, equipment costs and man hour costs.
it also kind of ruins the whole "end of internet radio!!!" argument If I did the math correctly, I would say you are wrong.
$1 gets you 909 songs Or roughly 6.3 tuning hours if your maths correct.


By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 11:14:45 PM , Rating: 1
$1 gets you 909 songs Or roughly 6.3 tuning hours if your maths correct. That should read: 6.3 tuning DAYS, not hours if you listen to 144 songs per day.


RE: Many of you are TOTALLY incorrect on the rates
By adam00 on 7/16/2007 12:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
@ Raised

1) don't act like you're explaining anything to me or anyone else If you read the article and the posts i did. did you? Remember the rates: Per song Per listener . We're all aware you condescending idiot. Prepare to have a taste of what you dish out.

2) you're the primary idiot who was claiming the rate was $.10 in the thread "Chicken Little" so don't act like you're some sort of authority on the subject.

3) $2000 per month is not that much for 20,000 listeners. That's a $1.20 per listener per year... so what? that's peanuts.

4) Your logic skills are severly lacking. Well, grab your calculator. Grab a brain dude. Lets see, your estimate was Estimate 6 songs per hour(low estimate) = 144 in 24 hours. Umm yeah, lets grab our calculators, shall we? Here's an estimate for you: 4 min per song. Times your "low estimate" of 144 songs is a total of 10 HOURS PER DAY.

10 hours per day, i'm sorry, that's your "low estimate" Well, what's your high estimate? do you listen to the radio when you sleep? do you have a job? I'd say more like an hour or two a day max. So, 30-60 hours per month. Not 300, like you claim.

5) More proof you're logic skills leave something to be desired. You estimate $200,000 a year in fees for the person with 20,000 listeners. Yet that person has stated that it will cost him about $2000 a month or $24,000 a year. oh look, more in line with my common sense and not your bs.

6) but remember the fees have NOT been set yet. We don't know where they will be. i don't need to remember, i already knew that. What you do NOT know is that those rates are the rates being requested by Soundexchange. Therefore they are likely the maximum rates possible, they aren't going to be awarded a higher rate than they are requesting... if anything, it might be lower.

7) If I did the math correctly, I would say you are wrong. yeah, you didn't. next time, maybe you should double check before you correct people.

have a nice day.

To everyone else... i really don't see the point in discussing the total market size for the internet radio. Its like discussing what your cell phone should cost based on the total worldwide revenue of service providers... who cares? A better question: What will it cost the average user?

Even if we were to attempt to follow Raised's silly "logic" and one were to listen to 10 hours of music per day, how much would a station want to charge you to cover fees? 144 songs/day * .0015 (average price over next 3 years) * 30.5 days/month = $6.58 / month. less than $7 for music all day long (pretty much) and a total of over 4,000 songs.

Again, i just want to point out that i'm not a fan of the fee at all. But, i cannot abide by this stupid argument that internet radio is going to disappear. $7 for what i would call a very high demand user. A more typical user say 30 hours a month will cost something like $.70 The stations will find a way to pass on that $1/month to us. Either through payment or ads, but internet radio will not die.


By RaisedinUS on 7/16/2007 1:17:06 AM , Rating: 1
2) you're the primary idiot who was claiming the rate was $.10 in the thread "Chicken Little" so don't act like you're some sort of authority on the subject. Obviously, you can't read either. I was NOT the primary idiot but the 9th poster. Several before me assumed the $.10. I was merely using the example of $.10 like everyone else. Whose the idiot? Look in a mirror oh smart one.
3) $2000 per month is not that much for 20,000 listeners. That's a $1.20 per listener per year... so what? that's peanuts. Not much? For a free station, it's a lot. Did you forget about the costs of running the station too? You sure forgot about the $500 yearly fee. And you call ME an idiot? LMAO Talk about uninformed!
4) Your logic skills are severly lacking. Well, grab your calculator. Grab a brain dude. Lets see, your estimate was Estimate 6 songs per hour(low estimate) = 144 in 24 hours. Umm yeah, lets grab our calculators, shall we? Here's an estimate for you: 4 min per song. Times your "low estimate" of 144 songs is a total of 10 HOURS PER DAY.
Way to prove you are an idiot. Did I not say I low estimated it? Don't you add space for ads, talk, chit chat?
10 hours per day, i'm sorry, that's your "low estimate" Well, what's your high estimate? do you listen to the radio when you sleep? do you have a job? I'd say more like an hour or two a day max. So, 30-60 hours per month. Not 300, like you claim. http://www.bridgeratings.com/press_04.18.07.Intern...
That's based on stats. I low balled the actual number of songs. Obviously you do not research anything before shooting off your mouth. I am going by these stats for an estimate. A lot of people I know leave their station on 24/7. Yes, you have to include this even though you aren't actually there. If you're connected, it counts.
5) More proof you're logic skills leave something to be desired. You estimate $200,000 a year in fees for the person with 20,000 listeners. Yet that person has stated that it will cost him about $2000 a month or $24,000 a year. oh look, more in line with my common sense and not your bs.
If you are going to show your ignorance, please get it right. I stated $199,728.00, not $200,000.
And you, sir moronic failed to include the other costs of running a station. I guess you are the one full of BS here.
6) but remember the fees have NOT been set yet. We don't know where they will be. i don't need to remember, i already knew that. What you do NOT know is that those rates are the rates being requested by Soundexchange. Therefore they are likely the maximum rates possible, they aren't going to be awarded a higher rate than they are requesting... if anything, it might be lower. Maximum? I doubt that as taxes always increase and rarely decrease.
7) If I did the math correctly, I would say you are wrong. yeah, you didn't. next time, maybe you should double check before you correct people. Pot calling the kettle black? I think so. Your ignorance amazes me.
Even if we were to attempt to follow Raised's silly "logic" and one were to listen to 10 hours of music per day, how much would a station want to charge you to cover fees? 144 songs/day * .0015 (average price over next 3 years) * 30.5 days/month = $6.58 / month. less than $7 for music all day long (pretty much) and a total of over 4,000 songs.
This really shows how uninformed you really are. Many people that work in offices listen to internet radio for 8-10 hours during the work week. And you did the math wrong stupid. You did it for 1 person, not the amount listening in. You still do not grasp tuning hours as you claim. This is the amount stations have to pay for. For the above station, it was a hobby. He didn't do it for a profit and had no revenue from it to pay for its self.
Im summary, you Sir are a total idiot and receive the gold star. Thank you, go stand in the corner now.
Prepare to have a taste of what you dish out. Do tell us how it tastes.
Will net radio die? I don't know but many small stations will fold up.


RE: Many of you are TOTALLY incorrect on the rates
By adam00 on 7/16/2007 2:46:57 AM , Rating: 2
This is great. :) from the website you listed in your prior post it states:

Audience Composition

The entire sample can be viewed based on how many hours a week they spend listening to Internet Radio. We break out the entire sample into 5 groups or Quintiles each Quintile is associated with the number of hours per week listened.

Quintile V (heaviest listening) - 20+ hours per week
Quintile IV (next heaviest) - 15-19 hours per week
Quintile III (moderate) - 10-14 hours per week
Quintile II (light listening) - 6-9 hours per week
Quintile I (lightest listening) - less than 6 hours per week
. . .
The predominant percentage of Internet Radio listeners fall into Quintile III where 38% of the sample spend between 10-14 hours a week listening. On average this amounts to approximately an hour and 43 minutes a day.

end snip

So, the website you listed backs me up entirely. Awesome .
Typical user is 10-14 hours a week, i estimated 30-60 a month. Pretty much right on what i said. I said someone who listens 10 hours a day would be a high demand user... also backed up by the website you listed. So, thank you. :)

yes, yes If you are going to show your ignorance, please get it right. I stated $199,728.00, not $200,000. You are correct I rounded up your number by 0.1% or so. Yes, how very ignorant of me. you got me there. wow. good one. the pain is unbearable.

500 a year fee is de minimus. if you've got 20,000 listeners it costs you 2-3 cents a user a year, big deal.

You criticize me in several different ways for doing my calculations on a per user basis as if i was mistaken. My analysis was quite intentional. Every business analyzes their variable costs on a per unit basis, not in the aggregate. Its also a measure for what these companies might start charging people and is therefore a more useful metric for the end user.

I was NOT the primary idiot but the 9th poster. Several before me assumed the $.10. I was merely using the example of $.10 like everyone else. Whose (sic) the idiot? all your friends jumped off the bridge so you did too? who doesn't do their research?

btw, "whose" the idiot? I'd say it's the person who doesn't know the difference between "whose" and "who is"... :) :) :) :P :)

but that's just me :) i'll go back to standing in my corner now, as you wish... laughing my arse off at your expense. :)


By RaisedinUS on 7/16/2007 8:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
So, the website you listed backs me up entirely. Awesome . You left out 1 small detail. This was a SAMPLE of 3000 listeners. 3000 out of 57 million. There you go cherry picking again. Got that calculator handy? 3000 is what percentage of 57 million?
btw, "whose" the idiot? I'd say it's the person who doesn't know the difference between "whose" and "who is"... :) :) :) :P :) Oh, we want to get critical? Who can't find their cap button?
but that's just me :) i'll go back to standing in my corner now, as you wish... laughing my arse off at your expense. :) Don't forget to save some of that laughing for yourself. ;)
yes, yes If you are going to show your ignorance, please get it right. I stated $199,728.00, not $200,000. You are correct I rounded up your number by 0.1% or so. Yes, how very ignorant of me. you got me there. wow. good one. the pain is unbearable.
And here you go off topic and losing your caps button again. Geeee, for someone so smart.....and you criticize anyone for rounding or using a generalization.
I was NOT the primary idiot but the 9th poster. Several before me assumed the $.10. I was merely using the example of $.10 like everyone else. Whose (sic) the idiot? all your friends jumped off the bridge so you did too? who doesn't do their research? I did my research as obviously you did little of, if any. You choose to focus more on my spelling of a few words than the lack of use of your caps button, Great job slick. You also focus on an individual listener instead of on the stations, as the article talks about. The stations are the ones that pay the bills, especially when many are free. All I was trying to do is show how quickly these fees can add up, spread over millions of people, it can add to a huge sum. So, if you want to look to the individual listener, instead of what the article was talking about, so be it.
4) Your logic skills are severly lacking. Since you pick on spelling so much, let me point out some errors of your own. Severly should SEVERELY.
Your posts are riddled with caps errors. Kind of like someone too lazy to use caps lock. All you've proven is what?
A)We both can't spell very well.
B) You can't find your caps lock button.
C) You go off topic quite a lot.
D) You can't understand 3000 out of 57 million isn't a good sampling rate.
E) You fail to acknowledge the rates are unfair and excessive.
F) You live in a glass house but yet throw bricks.
G) You like to round numbers but don't like anyone else to.
H) You like to make fun of people and do the same things yourself.
All in all, you are "Severly" challenged. Go have your laugh, Mr SeverlyCan't find my caps lock, you may be drawing a few laughs yourself.


By RaisedinUS on 7/16/2007 8:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but I have to do this.
7) If I did the math correctly, I would say you are wrong. yeah, you didn't. next time, maybe you should double check before you correct people. These seem like words to live by, even for Mr. "Severly". ;)


RE: Many of you are TOTALLY incorrect on the rates
By adam00 on 7/16/2007 4:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
wow. just wow. I wasn't going to embarrass you again, but your rants have gone further towards raving lunacy.

on spelling/caps and such... i don't caps the beginning of every sentence, cause i just don't care that much. :) I don't really think it makes me stupid. I misspelled severely because of a typo obviously. you on the other hand don't know the difference between whose and who is, a grammatical error, not a typo. its funny cause you're dumb. :) btw, if you want to argue that i'm stupid blah blah because i don't capitalize, its the shift key i'm missing, not the caps lock button.

About the website... you were the one who cited the website as authority not me. It backed my point up, not yours. Hence, the irony/humor in the situation. :)

On to my important point, other than destroying Raised for everyone's entertainment...
Raised again spreads stupidity in his last post. I feel it is my duty to correct the dissemination of misinformation. ;)

A sample size of 3000 is an EXCELLENT sample size. Statistically speaking, the percentage of the number of listeners sampled (which Raised asserts is important) is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The standard error of a sample mean is given by the formula: standard deviation / sqrt(sample size). Furthermore, as per the central limit therom, we can likely expect a gaussian (bell curve) distribution (approximately, at least) of hours per listener because the variable has a finite variance. The website bears out a bell curve somewhat... a little difficult to tell because they've grouped people into quintiles.

Okay, so some people might be saying "yuck, statistics." I understand. :) so, let me make 2 other non-math points:
1) The website itself says it has a margin of error of +-1.8%, that's quite accurate for statistics
2) when you see polls on say the Iraq war or political races, they usually sample about 1000-1500 people. that's enough to get them in the +-3 to 4% range.

BUT, Raised, like OMG! get your calc out, what % is 1000 out of 300 million???? I must be stupid!!! Yet Newsweek does an Iraq poll every month or two with about 1000 people. You see, with statistics you don't need a huge sample size to get fairly accurate results. And, the size of the thing being sampled, like listeners or US citizens, is irrelevant to the error margin.

Furthermore, decreasing the error in the sample becomes exponentially more work. To cut the error in half you have to increase your sample size by a factor of 4, because of the square root in the denominator. That's why they don't sample more people, its a lot more work for minimal (relatively) gain in terms of the practical use of the poll.

Now, to the fun... the part where i ruin Raised point by point. ready! here we go!

A)We both can't spell very well.
I never mocked spelling or typos... i mocked your grammatical stupidity. That wasn't a typo, you don't know the difference between "whose" and "who is." It was especially funny because you said "whose the idiot?" :) :) that's called irony. its hilarious. :)

B) You can't find your caps lock button.
Again, i think you mean the "shift key" and i can find it... i just don't care when typing on a internet forum.

C) You go off topic quite a lot.
umm? okay? good one, sparky.

D) You can't understand 3000 out of 57 million isn't a good sampling rate.
I have DESTROYED you. I dare you to make a pathetic attempt to try and dispute what I said. You're so stupid, you don't even realize how dumb you are. I will talk intellectual circles around you on statistics any day of the week.

E) You fail to acknowledge the rates are unfair and excessive.
My first post made clear that I don't agree with the rates. My point was that people, you included, had misstated the rates by a factor of 50 to 100, and I corrected that. My second point was -- whether the rates are "fair" or "unfair" -- the argument that internet radio was going to die is silly.

F) You live in a glass house but yet throw bricks.
My house is made of solid steel. You haven't scratched me yet, son.

G) You like to round numbers but don't like anyone else to.
I never complained about anyone rounding a number... you did. I did criticize your ignorant estimations. That simply isn't the same as rounding.

H) You like to make fun of people and do the same things yourself.
I like to stomp out stupidity. I mock idiots, like yourself, that claim fact when the are wrong.

Raised, I challenge you to defend yourself on your statement about statistics OR admit you were wrong.
But, i doubt you will. Instead you'll point out my capitalization or a typo or something.


By RaisedinUS on 7/17/2007 10:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
About the website... you were the one who cited the website as authority not me. It backed my point up, not yours. Hence, the irony/humor in the situation. :) I posted it to show the amount of internet listeners. When I did my calculations, I used 50 million, not 57 million and roughly half the songs that could be played per hour.
A sample size of 3000 is an EXCELLENT If you want 3000 to speak for 57 million, that's your problem.
get your calc out, what % is 1000 out of 300 million 300 million? Wrong, it's 57 million.
i don't caps the beginning of every sentence, cause i just don't care that much. Or too lazy but you love to point out others mistakes. Seems to me you're the typical "school boy" idiot we all hated in school. You were probably the one that said "I know you are what am I".
its funny cause you're dumb One of the funniest things you"ve said! LOL The dumb calling someone dumb, how quaint.
I never mocked spelling or typos... i mocked your grammatical stupidity. You make mistakes as well, your typing is hideous and remember that "serverly" error of yours? And your rants about a word usage error? Remember now? I want to point out something. But, i doubt you will. LOL Can you explain this FUBAR?
C) You go off topic quite a lot. This article is about the stations, not the listener as you seem to want to make it out to be. It's not about grammar or spelling either but I can play your game.
That's a $1.20 per listener per year... so what? that's peanuts. It's not about the listener, stupid.
Who wrote this nugget? who cares? Then went on to talk about LISTENERS, not the stations. What will it cost the average user? If the station is free, nothing. And this: ps. even if the fee is passed onto the end user, how much will it really cost I think it was you, Mr. serverly.
My house is made of solid steel. You haven't scratched me yet, son.
This sounds like Foghorn Leghorn and really sums you up.
An example: 1) don't act like you're explaining anything to me or anyone else If you read the article and the posts i did. did you? And yet another jewel: You criticize me in several different ways for doing my calculations on a per user basis as if i was mistaken. Now boy, I say BOY! Come on, severly, say it.
I have DESTROYED you. Must be nice to be so above everyone else that your ego blinds. You minimize the effects of these rates on stations but you accept a 3000 out of 57 million survey. Brilliant! I am so destroyed.
It is NOT $.10 per song, it is actually $.0011 per song Mr severly left something out of his equation here, the per LISTENER factor. Brilliant yet again. You state you fully understand but yet you leave facts out. After all, why let a silly think like facts get in the way of Mr. severly's english class. Talk about: I did criticize your ignorant estimations. Even here, you said it yourself. ESTIMATIONS. I did not post FACT, but ESTIMATES. You are ranting as if I was posting a fact.
I like to stomp out stupidity. I mock idiots, like yourself, that claim fact when the are wrong. Do humanity a favor, start with yourself. Lead by example my boy. Sadly, you seem to be more of a "Do what I say, not what I do type".
Raised, I challenge you to defend yourself on your statement about statistics OR admit you were wrong. Statistics are only as good as the information. The sampeling rate here was too small and we have no idea who they questioned. Was it a few retirement homes? The elderly? I do not trust polls if they can't verify the information and none of you should. Wasn't Bush clearly declared the loser in both presidential races? Didn't the exit polls and media claim this?
I want to point out something. But, i doubt you will. Instead you'll point out my capitalization or a typo or something. For someone who doesn't care about caps, you sure used them more in the last rant. Did someone else write this for you or did you decide to care? Maybe your mom showed you how to "make a cap"? You get another gold star.
You are someone I want to be when I grow up. ./sarcastic


By adam00 on 7/17/2007 5:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
well, i'm not going to respond to most of your post because its just rant, but a few points...

You know nothing about statistics.
"Sampling rate" is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is sample size. To say that 3000 cannot "speak" for 57 million just shows your willful ignorance.
Yes, 3000 can "speak" for 57 million. Its not "my problem," its statistics. Its like I've told you the sky is blue and you say its not. It doesn't matter what you believe, its math.

As for your example with the exit polls with Bush, the percentages did not say that Bush would lose... why? Because of the margin of error. When a poll says Bush 45% and Kerry 47% with a 3% margin of error... that poll doesn't say anything. Bush or Kerry might actually be ahead because of the error margin involved. Now, if a poll said Bush 38% and Kerry 51% with a 2% margin of error that would be a different story.

we have no idea who they questioned. Was it a few retirement homes? The elderly? I do not trust polls if they can't verify the information and none of you should.
If you had read the whole article you'd know it was done by random telephone calls.

From the website:
*Sample = 3000 consumers 12+
Methodology: Random digit dial telephone interviews, one person per household.

Again, you don't know because you are willfully ignorant. Yet, you arrogantly tell the rest of us what to do.

.

Must be nice to be so above everyone else
Not everyone, just you. I do NOT mock the uneducated or uniformed. I DO mock those that claim as definitive a fact when they are wrong, especially in the case of willful/intentional ignorance. It is not just your stupidity, but your unjustified arrogance that earned you an intellectual thrashing by my hand.

Raised, respond, if you wish to placate your decimated ego. But, I don't really care, you've proven yourself to be an pathetic child who invents what he does not care to learn. Anyone who listens to you at this point deserves to be misinformed. I am finished with you.


RE: Many of you are TOTALLY incorrect on the rates
By NYNoodle on 7/17/2007 5:57:11 PM , Rating: 3
First of all, I would just like to say that you're both amusing. It's been an interesting back and forth, but I would have to say that RaisedinUS is slightly retarded if he does not comprehend the points being made.

Actually, he's probably ignoring the points, because:
1) He knows he's wrong, and just doesn't want to admit it because it will make him look stupid (which of course makes him look ever more stupid)
2) He really doesn't care about the points and just wants to shout how he's smarter (sounds a bit Republican to me, they lack critical thinking in general as well)
3) He's good at being ignorant of the facts (already proven)

But it's an interesting read.

Oh and:
A sample size of 3000 is an EXCELLENT.
If you want 3000 to speak for 57 million, that's your problem.

Did you really want them to sample (keyword: sample) 57 million people? That IS stupid. That's what statistics is for (and just to be clear so you don't correct _is_ statistics as a category, not a group of numbers.)

get your calc out, what % is 1000 out of 300 million
300 million? Wrong, it's 57 million.

This one went over your head. 300 million = population of the US. Typical political poll ~ 1000-1500 sample. 300 million is wrong also, because more people vote for American Idol than for national elections. So they usually sample LIKELY voters (hard number to come up with, but let's say 30-40 million vote in presidential elections when it's interesting), so it's a sample out of 30-40 million (that 1000-1500.)

I want to point out something. But, i doubt you will. Instead you'll point out my capitalization or a typo or something.
For someone who doesn't care about caps, you sure used them more in the last rant. Did someone else write this for you or did you decide to care? Maybe your mom showed you how to "make a cap"? You get another gold star.
You are someone I want to be when I grow up. ./sarcastic


Ok, he was right on the caps/spelling vs. grammar. If you're going to get THAT nitpicky, it's Internet with a capital I. Stop typing internet, it's wrong.

I'm sure I could find more, but I just wanted to generally agree with Adam that RaisedinUS is a great example of what actually being raised in the US with today's education system means. Ignorance, non-critical thinking, and a tendency to try to fault others when the only one to blame is yourself.

Ta.


By wordsworm on 7/19/2007 7:07:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok, he was right on the caps/spelling vs. grammar. If you're going to get THAT nitpicky, it's Internet with a capital I. Stop typing internet, it's wrong.
I've seen that the convention is capital I for Internet. But it feels wrong to me. It's almost like writing earth instead of Earth when all the other planets get caps. But, convention does not rely on anything but consensus.

I found it funniest when he blamed other posters for his faulty 10 cents per song point. Who would admit to being a lemming?


By NYNoodle on 7/23/2007 10:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've seen that the convention is capital I for Internet. But it feels wrong to me. It's almost like writing earth instead of Earth when all the other planets get caps. But, convention does not rely on anything but consensus.


Well, actually, there's a reason for the capital I. An internet is any type of interconnecting network. The Internet speaks about the one we all know and love. ;-). There are many internets but only one Internet. Of course, we usually know most people mean the Internet when they say "the internet".

As for earth, it's explained somewhere:
http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-4756.html
quote:
I was recently asked, "Why is the earth not capitalized?" My answer: "It is not a name of a person. The other major planets are named after Greek/Roman gods.

I found that although earth was named after the Greek goddess, Gaea, its title still remains simply "earth".

My question: "Why do we not call earth Gaea, as we call all the other planets by their Greek/Roman names?"

Response
Earth is named after the Old English word eorthe, meaning "ground". Gaea is the goddess of the earth, who bore and married Uranus and became the mother of the Titans and the Cyclopes.


So really, we're just calling our lovely planet "ground", which does not get capitalized. If we started calling it Gaia or Gaea that would be different (damn those Japanese cartoons are popping into my head, FF.)


Chicken little
By wordsworm on 7/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Chicken little
By RaisedinUS on 7/14/2007 10:26:53 AM , Rating: 5
A bunch of people running around claiming that the sky is falling when, clearly, this just means that the free ride is over.
Free ride? We already pay a license fee per month for the listeners we have. We also spend a lot of money for quality bandwidth not to mention software and buying Cd's. How many hosting services are going to get hit because they have no one to buy the expensive bandwidth they bought to sell? Most have to sign a lengthy contract for Os/Ds/T3 lines.
Your "free ride" argument is stupid and uninformed. I wished the world was as candy coated as you think it is.
As anyone knows, MORE government isn't a good thing.


RE: Chicken little
By wordsworm on 7/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Chicken little
By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 11:33:46 AM , Rating: 3
If you read these posts, you would see I already have. Perhaps a little more reading on your part would reveal that answer.
More good government is always a good thing. Wrong again. Almost everything the government gets into, they screw it up with more people, more salaries, more red tape more BS then more taxes to pay for the bloated service they provide. They quickly loose site of the original goals and add more rules and regulations, then it balloons out of control.

One again you idiot, what free ride? We already pay a monthly license fee per listener. What do terrestrial stations pay? What do satellite radio pay? Why does the government have to compensate artists? If they suck so bad that they aren't making money, they need a new field of work. You honestly think they make the bulk off their cd's?
If Yahoo tells me next year that I will have to pay an additional $1.20 on top of the $70ish I paid this year, I will pay it without feeling much of an impact. Next they will tell you to die and ride the comet. Will you comply?


RE: Chicken little
By peritusONE on 7/15/2007 11:51:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Next they will tell you to die and ride the comet. Will you comply?

A bit of an extreme comparison to paying an extra $1.20, dontcha think?

The simple fact of the matter is that people own the rights to the product you are broadcasting. Regardless of what you think, they have the right to charge more for said product, and you must comply. This doesn't come down to good government or bad government, it comes down to current law. It seems to me that since internet pirates (and on the other hand, those who want to pay for music, but just at a severely discounted price) have been argueing about this for the past 7-8 years now, that you guys would figure out a different arguement. You are not going to stop the big record labels, so why not come up with something on your own? It's a big enough community of you guys, use your brains instead of whining all the time.


RE: Chicken little
By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 12:10:20 PM , Rating: 3
The simple fact of the matter is that people own the rights to the product you are broadcasting
You totally miss the point. We PAY the license fees that we are required by the RIAA to pay.
Same as you going to buy your favorite brand of CPU and realizing it's now $3000. And next year without notice they will charge you an additional CPU cycle charge of $.10 per CPU per machine.
The point is a FAIR charge not this BS charge they are trying to get through. This is really about shutting down internet radio. If you can't see that, you are blind.
use your brains instead of whining all the time.
Nice, but you came in and whined about: A bit of an extreme comparison to paying an extra $1.20, dontcha think?
But that's ok. If the RIAA rams this bill through, every internet user will suffer in the long/short run. This will leave the door wide open for more taxes on the internet and all your purchases from New Egg. It can't happen? Watch and see.
It seems to me that since internet pirates (and on the other hand, those who want to pay for music, but just at a severely discounted price)
It seems you are implying all internet radio stations mooch music. I have a huge CD collection I have built since CD's first came out. Yes, I actually BOUGHT them and I pay the license fee each month to play them. I think you need to remove your rose colored glasses for a bit and see what's really going on. But, you do have blurredvision.


RE: Chicken little
By wordsworm on 7/15/2007 1:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
I seem to recall that RIAA is in the process of collecting revenue from traditional radio broadcasters http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-riaa...
You're acting like a spoiled child. The breakdown of the fees were mistaken in at least one category.
quote:
It isn't just a $.10 charge per song
It's 10 cents per listener per month that's cited in this article. That's a nominal fee.

quote:
ride the comet
If the gas station starts to charge more per liter, we must pay it. If oranges suddenly become more expensive, then if you want oranges, you must pay more. If you want to listen to music, or become a music provider, then we're just as responsible for the increased costs.

Your logic is harmless against my arguments, your insults
quote:
you idiot
juvenile,
quote:
It isn't just a $.10 charge per song
is fallacious (from Tuan)
quote:
Sommers realized he would have to pay $2000 per month to keep his station of 20,000 listeners afloat.
That's 10 cents per listener per month. That's not 10 cents per song. I have no doubt but that Sommers' listeners listen to more than a single song each.

Having to pay more makes things more complicated, granted, more expensive, also granted. However, the fees requested are extremely reasonable. I'm curious, you mentioned in your previous article, you wrote
quote:
We already pay a license fee per month for the listeners we have.
Does this mean you have your own radio station? What's its webpage address? Would you mind if I mirrored your website and got my own advertisers? It would certainly be easier than making my own online radio station. Or would you want the government to come along and stop me from copying your work for my own ends? It's like complaining about the police when you're caught red handed, and then screaming bloody murder when, understaffed, they don't come in a timely manner to your rescue. If you compose, play, and record your own music, you're free to play it on your radio station without having to pay anyone anything. But you're copying someone else's work. Not all artists like to go on tours (ie., Portishead). They've managed to get some of their work in commercials, but should that be their only source of revenue? Or should they also get some revenue from broadcasters? RIAA is already talking about leveling the playing field by making traditional radio stations pay for the music that they play.

If the government does nothing, it is the same as letting a robbery go on and doing nothing about it. I don't want to have to pay more any more than anyone who is conscientious about their pocketbook.


RE: Chicken little
By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 1:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
As I have stated, the terrestrial stations pay nowhere near the fees per month as they want to charge internet radio.
This while the world’s three major copyright holders’ groups - ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC - collectively charge terrestrial broadcast radio stations $972 per year per station, for the rights to broadcast exactly the same music to an equivalent or larger audience. From:http://wiredpen.com/2007/04/03/proposed-internet-r...
quote:
It isn't just a $.10 charge per song

Read again. It's $.10 per song PER LISTENER PER STREAM. That is again: $500 per year, per stream. If you have 2 it equals $1000. $.10 per song per listener: If you have 1000 listeners that's $.10 per listener multiplied by how many songs they all listen to. If all 1000 listened to 100 songs, that's how much money???
I fail to see how this fact escapes you. Terrestrial stations do not pay this "performance" tax.

Your logic is harmless against my arguments, your insults
Your "arguments" are based in pure ignorance. As for my insult, I insult you because you are too lazy to read .
quote:
Sommers realized he would have to pay $2000 per month to keep his station of 20,000 listeners afloat.
Did you factor in the $500 per month per stream of has this small fact eluded your vast intellect as well? How many streams does he have? And you wonder why I call you an idiot.
Does this mean you have your own radio station?
Yes I do and I am NONPROFIT. And because you don't understand things well, that means I make NO money. It's a hobby. I sell no advertising, I hawk NOTHING.

If the government does nothing, it is the same as letting a robbery go on and doing nothing about it. I don't want to have to pay more any more than anyone who is conscientious about their pocketbook. Do you wear rose colored glasses too? Perhaps you and blurredvision are the same person? Again I ask:What robbery? Answer this simple question. You do realize the fees collected don't go to the artist but to the WRITERS. No, you didn't as you only want to argue instead of factually arming yourself.
Bottom line is this: Why are internet stations being charged with FAR more FEES than terrestial stations and satellite radio are being charged?


RE: Chicken little
By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 1:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
And to add to your stupidity, you post a link to an old article: RIAA: Radio needs to pay up

By Nate Anderson | Published: May 22, 2007 - 09:50PM CT

From the article YOU posted the link for: Most digital broadcasters in the US do have to pay these performance royalties, which is why satellite radio currently pays 7.5 percent of its revenues for the privilege of playing music. Webcasters pay a fee as well, but terrestrial radio is exempted.
And here's another juicy nugget: Radio has long paid out money to familiar names like ASCAP and BMI, but these are collection societies that represent composers and songwriters, not the music labels or the performers. Not surprisingly, the performers have often concluded that this was not an ideal arrangement and that they would prefer to be paid when their work is broadcast.
And yet another: On May 9, David Rehr of the National Association of Broadcasters sent a letter to various senators who might get involved in the issue, telling them that the performance royalty "is not a right—this is a new tax."
You are not spoiled, you are lazy.


RE: Chicken little
By Hawkido on 7/16/2007 1:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you compose, play, and record your own music, you're free to play it on your radio station without having to pay anyone anything.


Actually, if you read all the bills the RIAA has in flight. one of them states a universal inescapable royalty fee they wish to charge of anyone who plays any song (their own included) and you have to pay the royalty collection agency they set up (sourceforge?) to get the royalties for the song you wrote, recorded, and broadcast over a medium you paid for.

Keep this in mind: They want independant publications dead. If not dead they want independant publications to pay the established music industry for their own survival. Either you die or you pay them for something they have NO RIGHT to collect from you. Next legislators will use the laws put in effect by RIAA to attack free speech by charging royalties on talk radio, and internet talk-radio (the printing press of the internet age).


RE: Chicken little
By Hawkido on 7/17/2007 2:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sound Exchange not sourceforge... LOL Where'd I get SourceForge?


RE: Chicken little
By wordsworm on 7/18/2007 9:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you're saying. But it's not SoundExchange. The idea that they're putting forth is almost unbelievably reasonable. Certainly the artists should have some revenue from the webcasts. It's not just service providers renting out bandwidth that should be making a profit. The artists deserve something too, contrary to what I've inferred from RaisedinUS. The RIAA is a much different animal. I agree with you 100% about them.


RE: Chicken little
By HakonPCA on 7/15/2007 11:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Next year they will tell you to die and ride the comet. Will you comply?"

VERY NICE REFERENCE - to all those people trying to argue against you, please read ATLAS SHRUGGED and then you'll understand what he (or she?) is talking about!!!

AGAIN very, very nice!!

thanks for the reference, more people need to read that book


RE: Chicken little
By daemoth on 7/16/2007 12:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
People should try biting off the Fountainhead first. More story, more moving, less being clubbed over the head by Ayn Rand's Objectivist Doctrine.


Crushing rates
By alifbaa on 7/13/2007 5:13:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Sommers realized he would have to pay $2000 per month to keep his station of 20,000 listeners afloat.


10 cents/listener/month is a crushing royalty to pay for a relatively obscure station. While it doesn't sound like a lot, the bandwidth costs inherent to a quality station are enormous if you aren't generating a similarly large amount
of advertising revenue. For a less popular genre like big-band Jazz, you can forget about generating the necessary revenue to pay those kinds of fees.

It seems to me that the music industry knows this, and is simply trying to exert the same control over online radio that they enjoy over terrestrial and satellite radio. Soon, the only independent internet stations will be user supported like most independent radio stations are today.

While it's certainly a less desirable solution than before, this is probably an easier model to sustain than on traditional radio since the audience is worldwide and a website can be constantly running a membership drive.




RE: Crushing rates
By Treckin on 7/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Crushing rates
By simko1ra on 7/13/2007 6:15:37 PM , Rating: 4
ROFL, $2000 per month / 20,000 users = $0.10/user. Do everyone a favor and finish math class before you post again.


RE: Crushing rates
By MonkeyPaw on 7/13/2007 7:47:13 PM , Rating: 4
"calc.exe" must have fallen off his Recent Programs list.


RE: Crushing rates
By buckeye25osu on 7/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Crushing rates
By Hawkido on 7/16/2007 11:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
LOL I think what our quite embarrased poster was trying to say is that Satellite radio costs about ~$10 per month. (Is that true? I never checked into Sat Radio)
he was trying to juxtapose the $0.10/user/month VS. $10/user/month fee which is completely ludicrus as internet radio has ads to pay for it and Satellite Radio is purely Subscription driven (or so I have been told, I think the Sports casts have inherent ads in the actual broadcasts)

If you look at it this way his math wasn't off as much as his logic was bad, compounded by the fact he failed to articulate himself effectively.


RE: Crushing rates
By Avalon on 7/13/2007 6:16:29 PM , Rating: 3
You've got no room to be rude, idiot.

10 cents x 20000 people = $2000.

There is no excuse for that kind of attitude. Grow up.


RE: Crushing rates
By Cullinaire on 7/15/2007 12:39:39 AM , Rating: 3
The sad part is, this isn't the first time you've made a complete fool of yourself trying to correct others.

I look forward to future attempts as well.


RE: Crushing rates
By RaisedinUS on 7/14/2007 11:16:24 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think people understand the rates they want to charge.
It isn't just a $.10 charge per song, it's also per listener.
It's $500 per stream. If a station plays 5 different genera's on 5 different IP addy's, that's $500 EACH.
If each stream(IP) has 5000 listeners, that's $.10 PER LISTENER. 5 x 5000 x $.10. Now, kick in the per stream fees and you have a LOT of money.
$500 per stream plus $.10 per listener per song per stream.


RE: Crushing rates
By PlasmaBomb on 7/15/2007 2:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
Realnetworks said that this would cost them $200 million annually. I don't think that even they make $200 million of pure profit.


RE: Crushing rates
By Slaimus on 7/16/2007 12:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
The most absurd thing about these royalties is that it is unconditional. If I were to release songs for free (as in royalties) to be broadcasted online, the radio website would still need to pay royalties to SoundExchange. SoundExchange does not even need to inform me that they are collecting royalties on my behalf. I guess they intend for me to get a royalty check from them (minus fees), and pay it back to the radio website.

This setup greatly profits the labels (they also run SoundExchange), and discourage independent distribution, which was the original intention of internet radio.


Move servers
By Rebel44 on 7/13/2007 8:32:15 PM , Rating: 5
What they need to do is just to move servers from USA somewhere else and tell those greedy idiots to fuck off.




RE: Move servers
By RaisedinUS on 7/14/2007 10:40:04 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not a law expert but you still have to stream copyrighted material through US based internet providers. With this much money involved, look for providers to set up monitoring programs. They will look at all your data, sent and received for any "violations". People better wake up and see what this really means. The internet police are at the front door and turning the door knob.


RE: Move servers
By jay401 on 7/14/2007 1:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
All this horsepoop because of some greedy corporate whores. How aggravating.


RE: Move servers
By Dactyl on 7/15/2007 10:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
Greedy music industry whores.

Don't blame corporate America for a bunch of overweight, greasy Hollywood executives.


RE: Move servers
By Macungah on 7/14/2007 4:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
False. This system requires royalty from people broadcasting. It would end up like the whole online gambling debacle. Just move the servers out of state, and you cannot be touched by US law.


RE: Move servers
By RaisedinUS on 7/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Move servers
By Sungpooz on 7/15/2007 5:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And this will help how? Moving from one state to the other will solve nothing as all the states are in the US.


If you read his post carefully, he probably meant "out of the States "

I think he meant out the U.S. entirely.


RE: Move servers
By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 11:20:57 AM , Rating: 2
Not what he said and besides, how do you propose to get your stream outside of the US other than move out?
You will still be using internet based IN the US. I would think the same law would apply. One stream or 100 streams it would still break the law as it stands.


RE: Move servers
By mino on 7/17/2007 3:34:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well, in allmost every country outside of the US the term "state" represents the "country" as a wholoe not just its administrative unit. So USA is also reffered-to as a state.

Just keep in mind that this an international forum.


Incorrect title
By DokGonzo on 7/13/2007 7:09:21 PM , Rating: 5
I think a more appropriate title would be "The beginning of the end for internet radio in the U.S."

Internet radio stations will simply move from U.S. servers to international servers. Problem solved.




RE: Incorrect title
By djkrypplephite on 7/13/2007 7:31:45 PM , Rating: 5
Or they could raise funds to buy an abandoned oil rig and make their own country. :D


RE: Incorrect title
By shaw on 7/15/2007 11:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
Jazz music, LIVE, from Shadow Moses 144 FM!


Not so fast
By NoSoftwarePatents on 7/13/2007 6:13:34 PM , Rating: 5
Congress and SoundExchange have heard loud and clear the amazing outpouring of support for Internet radio from webcasters, listeners and the thousands of artists they support. A commitment has been made to negotiate reasonable royalties, recognizing the industry’s long-term value and its still-developing revenue potential.

During negotiations SoundExchange committed temporarily not to enforce the new royalty rates so webcasters can stay online as new rates are agreed upon.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007...




RE: Not so fast
By Cybercat on 7/14/2007 11:18:40 PM , Rating: 3
Funny how this good news went overlooked by so many people.

~**INTERNET RADIO IS SAFE FOR NOW!!!**~

update the article please


RE: Not so fast
By RaisedinUS on 7/15/2007 11:36:23 AM , Rating: 1
It's not really good news. This is temporary.


RE: Not so fast
By Cybercat on 7/16/2007 3:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
So then.....it's bad news. OK?

Why don't you take what you can get?


I need to know...
By EntreHoras on 7/14/2007 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 4
Who are SoundExchange and why have this power in the Congress and the Music Industry.




RE: I need to know...
By RaisedinUS on 7/14/2007 10:34:20 AM , Rating: 4
Who are they? Well, let's see.....
The government is itching to tax the internet because it sees all the revenue generated and what they are missing in taxes. The RIAA and terrestrial radio stations have been hurt by internet radio and want to stop or limit it. How do you do this? Taxes or large royalty fees. Big money draws out the vultures to claim their "share", kind of like lawyers, and of course the government smells revenue. So it really doesn't matter who they are but how much money they can squeeze out and who thinks they can make a dollar.


I hope that Internet Radio calls their bluff!!!
By Emryse on 7/13/2007 5:25:54 PM , Rating: 4
I know it's a lot harder than it sounds and it certainly is a large risk, but I think the solution is pretty clear:

If Internet Radio was able to band together for a day of silence, then it should stand to reason that they could also band together to completely shut down as of Sunday.

All Internet Stations close, musicians go from getting "not enough" money to "none", realize what dumbasses they were, and come back to the negotiation table.




By dude on 7/14/2007 2:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think all musicians think this way, and truthfully, it's probably not up to them. It's the policing body that their publishers/producers are wrecking this havoc.


yup
By ixelion on 7/13/2007 6:14:03 PM , Rating: 4
Pandora has disappeared to all but to US citizens, so in Canada we have already seen the downsizing of internet radio just because they don't have the right to broadcast in Canada.

This is absolute bull, I rely heavily on internet radio to discover new music.




RE: yup
By wordsworm on 7/18/2007 9:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think if you pay for it, they'll let you subscribe. I was deeply saddened to see my Pandora go south (I'm in Korea). It didn't have a good enough selection for me to justify paying for it. It pushed me to subscribe to Yahoo. That being said, Yahoo is great at $80 a year. I can listen to whatever radio I want, or even make my own play lists. And to think, some of that money goes into the pockets of the companies and artists who put that music together.


NEGOTIATE STUPID
By Arrundale on 7/14/2007 10:31:29 AM , Rating: 5
Tax avoidance becomes a factor whenever rates are raised, because those "other people" change their behavior in response. Raising royalty rates WILL introduce a similar response -- this is basic Economics 101 stuff.

The first 50,000 listeners, or so, should have a lower rate. It is in everyone's interest for a negotiated solution, one that pays Royalties to Copyright holders and one that recognizes the economic realities of growing a small business.

The LAST thing the Copyright holders should demand is a change in business model to pay for their uncompromising rate increases.

WHY? Because the host may change its behavior in a way that produces a new business model that is unforeseen and contrary to Copyright holders' long-term interests (it has happened before). Setting CD prices in a retail store by dictat is not so different from demanding revenue from a new technological platform.

It is in their interest to negotiate a voluntary compliance for their Royalty rate -- not the other way around, with enforcement by the courts.

In this instance, the Rate multiplied by the number of listeners equals the tax. Negotiate an equitable solution before a new business model permanently changes the way the number of listeners are accounted.

Without a negotiated and equitable solution, it is just a matter of time before your favorite mp3 player has a new "plugin" that shields your participation from streaming media taxation.




Haha
By excrucio on 7/15/2007 1:17:42 AM , Rating: 3
1. Illegal File sharing will increase.
2. All the cry babies saying they don't get paid for their songs still won't get shit, because their sorry ass closed down all the stations.
3. Music such as the style Techno and Trance are often distributed by the artist them selves to be publically played and recognized, since the song is digitally created and usually guitar or no instruments are used what so ever.
4. Charging per listener and per stream, what is wrong with these guys, first of all the bandwidth only costs XX amount and they want to charge triple digits? and .10 cents a song, i rather take my chances illegal file sharing then using IP blockers.

UNITED STATES are just bunch of capitalists dumb f**ks that thinks the world revolves around them, not saying all Americans should be pointed guilty, but A LOT are ridiculously with their head up their ass thinking about money.

now it becomes two monsters on music, RIAA and SoundExchange, way to go.

I'm for online radio, and i enjoy listening to a stream all day at work to keep my self entertained and out of stress.

screw if im completely wrong, its just what i think.
2cent peace..




RE: Haha
By blaster5k on 7/15/2007 8:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Woah, woah. Before you criticize us Americans for our "capitalistic ways", I should point out that the situation we have today with the music industry arose largely as the result of governmental interference -- DMCA, and now rate setting for online broadcasters. Whenever the government gets involved, you can be sure that the result will be economically less desirable. This is why I'm not a fan of big government.


Temporary reprieve...
By kilkennycat on 7/13/2007 10:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
See Ars Technica news:-

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070713-soun...

( Don't mind the apparently abbreviated text of the URL ... it will still work..)




RE: Temporary reprieve...
By The Sharp Crayon on 7/14/2007 5:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
This from SomaFM News

Thanks to all your calls, a congressional roundtable (mini-hearing) occurred Thursday and one of the outcomes of that, SoundExchange stated that "For the people who want to comply with the law and are in bona fide negotiations with us, we don't want those people to be intimidated. And we don't want them to stop streaming." Simson qualified his statement by noting, "That's just so long as they're continuing to pay under the license they had." So effectively, we have some reprieve until the negotiations are concluded. 13-Jul-07


Question
By fierydemise on 7/14/2007 2:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
I've heard that SoundExchange collects royalties for all songs played even if this artist is not represented by SoundExchange. Is this true or just a rumor? If it is true how is it legal?




RE: Question
By PlasmaBomb on 7/15/2007 4:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
That is true, they hold a statutory licence ->
http://www.soundexchange.com/licensing101.html#a2
Scroll down.

They also charge artists to be a member, so if you are small it's not worth your effort to sign up. Guess who gets to keep the money they collected though?


Music Should Be Free
By JonnyDough on 7/16/2007 5:03:51 PM , Rating: 1
Millions of dollars paid to uneducated rappers and pop stars. Of course they'd do what their lawyers tell them and go to court for more bling money. Crimony! What happened to the good old days when people would sit around a campfire and sing folks songs? The truth is that artists are over-payed. Art should be a HOBBY, a way to express yourself and share love and sorrow with the world. Forget royalties. Forget your silly pimp rides. Grow up and learn to share or keep your damn music to yourself. If they're going to try to collect more money, don't buy their music. They already make enough. Half the time they're just selling us sex anyway. (See "Simpson+Music" under google)




RE: Music Should Be Free
By mino on 7/17/2007 3:42:17 AM , Rating: 3
Artists are NOT ever-paid problem is that lables and PSEUDO-artists are overpaid, beleive me there are very few real artists that got rich from royalties..


wtf
By zaki on 7/13/2007 8:50:20 PM , Rating: 1
man, fuck the music industry, i wouldnt even know half the artist i listen to if it wasnt for internet radio.

this is bull shit,

fuck the corporate world bioootch,




RE: wtf
By zaki on 7/13/2007 8:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
i got rated down for this? there must be some riaa fans around.


RE: wtf
By rdeegvainl on 7/13/2007 9:00:52 PM , Rating: 1
or people who didn't want to waist their time reading you last line.


RE: wtf
By rdeegvainl on 7/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: wtf
By zaki on 7/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: wtf
By phaxmohdem on 7/14/07, Rating: 0
All I know is...
By jay401 on 7/14/2007 1:21:57 PM , Rating: 3
If di.fm gets shut down work will be a lot less groovy. :(

I hate this fee/rate BS. Money-grubbing music industry...




No monies for them
By rdeegvainl on 7/13/2007 8:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that sound exchange has a right to collect royalties for anyone who didn't explicitly sign up with them, secondly i stopped purchasing music from the RIAA. I haven't found anyone to purchase from yet, but i'm still not gonna give them my money.
Third, isn't their a limit as to how long sound exchange holds the royalties for those who chose not to sign up with them, before they are forfeited?




Updates to the articles !
By crystal clear on 7/14/2007 2:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
Read this-

– NEWS RELEASE –
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: JULY 13, 2007
CONTACT: RICHARD ADES OR
GREGG PERRY
202-640-5894
NEWS@SOUNDEXCHANGE.COM
SoundExchange Confirms
Minimum Fee Offer
Reminds Commercial Webcasters of Obligations to Pay New Royalty Rates

http://www.soundexchange.com/documents/07_13_07%20...

Also-

– NEWS RELEASE –
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: JULY 12, 2007
CONTACT: RICHARD ADES OR
GREGG PERRY
202-640-5894
NEWS@SOUNDEXCHANGE.COM
Federal Court Denies Motion to Stay
Webcasting Royalty Decision
SoundExchange Still Active in Working on
Solution to Minimum Fee Cap
WASHINGTON,

http://www.soundexchange.com/documents/07_07_12%20...

http://www.soundexchange.com/




Goose killer
By Ronson on 7/14/2007 2:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
Finally, they are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs just for dinner. Lol.




It seems
By Sungpooz on 7/15/2007 5:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
All we see is the music industry pushing for more and more $$$ at the cost of its (what I believe to be) supporters

:(
mercy!




PURE GREED!
By Supersonic3474 on 7/17/2007 9:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
This is why people use file sharing to get their music. The RIAA are money driven predators that are out to screw as many people over as they can. Seems odd that the RIAA controls the music and not the bands themselves, oh yeah.... thats because the RIAA owns the music that the bands put out and only after taking 95% of the profits that music makes.

RIAA=LOSERS!




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki