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.)


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














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