| Rates don't look that bad These web sites get ad revenue and if they can't cover their costs, a shakeout is the usual result. Does the internet NEED 1000 different internet music streaming operations when a dozen will do?
2007 - $.0011 per performance
2008 - $.0014 per performance
2009 - $.0018 per performance
2010 - $.0019 per performance
Oxenford explains that the 2007 rate essentially translates to one-tenth of a penny per song per listener. Extrapolating from there, a webcaster will have to pay one penny for every ten listeners who hear a single song.
For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours (one listener listening for an hour) per month. Noncommercial webcasters who exceed that level must pay the commercial rate for all listening in excess of that limit.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | said by fAcEtIOUs:These web sites get ad revenue and if they can't cover their costs, a shakeout is the usual result. Does the internet NEED 1000 different internet music streaming operations when a dozen will do? 2007 - $.0011 per performance
2008 - $.0014 per performance
2009 - $.0018 per performance
2010 - $.0019 per performance
Oxenford explains that the 2007 rate essentially translates to one-tenth of a penny per song per listener. Extrapolating from there, a webcaster will have to pay one penny for every ten listeners who hear a single song.
For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours (one listener listening for an hour) per month. Noncommercial webcasters who exceed that level must pay the commercial rate for all listening in excess of that limit. not all have ad revenue
an internet radio i used to DJ for we could barely pay our bandwidth bills with what little we got from ads and donations
and we had 500 slots for wile and they were always filled on the weekends |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
do you need a 1000 different channels on your tv when a dozen will do? i think not! otherwise we would all have VHF tv's still with no digital cable, satellite, HDTV.. all of those things. and i bet you that every internet radio station has something unique about it, not one the same. they may play the same genre, but i have yet to find a rock station that i like more than chronix radio. before you know it, the RIAA will charge royalties to play mp3's in your car and your pc! |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | said by shane349:do you need a 1000 different channels on your tv when a dozen will do? i think not! otherwise we would all have VHF tv's still with no digital cable, satellite, HDTV.. all of those things. and i bet you that every internet radio station has something unique about it, not one the same. they may play the same genre, but i have yet to find a rock station that i like more than chronix radio. before you know it, the RIAA will charge royalties to play mp3's in your car and your pc! they tryed that a few years back and got shot down pretty fast
there line was the radio in the car is for the driver only and that any one else listing had to pay a fee |
|
 RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:These web sites get ad revenue and if they can't cover their costs, a shakeout is the usual result. Does the internet NEED 1000 different internet music streaming operations when a dozen will do? 2007 - $.0011 per performance
2008 - $.0014 per performance
2009 - $.0018 per performance
2010 - $.0019 per performance
Oxenford explains that the 2007 rate essentially translates to one-tenth of a penny per song per listener. Extrapolating from there, a webcaster will have to pay one penny for every ten listeners who hear a single song.
For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours (one listener listening for an hour) per month. Noncommercial webcasters who exceed that level must pay the commercial rate for all listening in excess of that limit. You can say the same for traditional OTA radio...except the dozen stations that are left are all playing the same 40 crappy songs. You need 1000 different stations to cover the variety of music and bands available. You get them down to 10 and they'll be playing talentless crap American Idol garbage.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to fAcEtIOUs
1000 becomes a dozen, a few mergers later and you have 2 who both lock everyone down to the latest service pack of Windows Vista and locks everyone out by using thier own proprietary hardware and codecs both of which suck.
So much for freedom of choice when it comes to radio. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Do the math. A popular stream with, say, 5,000 listeners during the day would pay:
Using 2006 (which they are already on the hook for), 0.08 cents per song per listening connection, or $4.00 per play.
At 15 songs per hour, that's $60 per hour.
Let's say that they only have that many listeners for half of the day and the overnight is minimal:
$60 x 12 hours = $720 per day.
$720 x 30 days = $21,600 per month
$21,600 x 12 months = $259,200 per year.
That's only the performance royalty at last year's rate. The author's royalty is already taking ~3.5% of the station's revenue via ASCAP, BMI etc.
This does not include bandwidth or any other costs of running the station, let alone any income for those running it. These rates have no basis in reality. A percentage of income formula, which is what the satellite radio companies are assessed by makes much more sense, and is what the Internet radio industry was using based on negotiations with the RIAA five years ago when this came up the last time.
Nobody not in on the take can defend this. Nobody. Expecting a business which may be bringing in around $100K a year to pay 2.5 times that to play music is utter insanity.
If the money were actually going to the artists it may have some merit but I guarantee you that the vast majority of those who are played on Internet radio never see a cent of any RIAA-administered royalty. They barely see any from ASCAP and BMI.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:These web sites get ad revenue and if they can't cover their costs, a shakeout is the usual result. Does the internet NEED 1000 different internet music streaming operations when a dozen will do? A dozen ? Yeah, so that those 12 stations will all be playing the same rotation of songs like a Clear Channel station. The reason there are 1000s of station around is because traditional radio left a huge void in the coverage of dozens of styles and genres. Perhaps you should take some time and listen to a few of those 1000s of stations so you might actual know what you are talking about.
--
Prove it... |
|
| said by bmn:Perhaps you should take some time and listen to a few of those 1000s of stations so you might actual know what you are talking about. I have and I can get all the variety I need on the Sirius channels.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by bmn:Perhaps you should take some time and listen to a few of those 1000s of stations so you might actual know what you are talking about. I have and I can get all the variety I need on the Sirius channels. Until the RIAA charges them enough to bankrupt them.  |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | Sirius/XM has enough money to hire enough lawyers to work out the sweetheart deal they have, which is a percentage of revenue. That is believed to be around 8%, which is less than what the Internet broadcasters were paying. Nobody knows for sure, because it's a secret. The RIAA and XM/Sirius are in cahoots here.
Webcasters, on the other hand, are expected to pay per "performance", even if it is more than 100% of their total revenue.
Where's the fairness in that?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Does the internet NEED 1000 different internet music streaming operations when a dozen will do?
Yes, Mr. RIAA Fanboy. |
|
 EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7
 ·Callcentric
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
1000 stations is a competitive market. A dozen is an oligopoly. It's much easier to collaborate on pricing when you have fewer people to gain tacit agreement and no competitive mavericks with which to contend.
Having listened to the Clear channel and other stations that play the same crap over and over, 1000 of those wouldn't be enough.
I have myriad other ways to entertain myself, and also own and have legal access to large collection(s) of legitimately owned quality music that can last me for decades.
As the "entertainment" media industry becomes more complicated and implementing more onerous restrictions, less choice and higher prices, I reduce my consumption of it.
So, tell the folks in the corner office to kiss my butt. They can't make me consume and pay for overpriced low quality stuff if I don't want to.
--
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Rates don't look that bad said by fAcEtIOUs:I have and I can get all the variety I need on the Sirius channels. The marketplace of music is much larger than just you fAcEtIOUs  . While Sirius has a load of excellent programming, I subscribe myself, their lineup still lacks some major genres and styles.
--
Prove it... |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
It all goes to the same tactic that the RIAA uses in their piracy settlements, "Go after those that can't fight back."
Sirius and XM have been fighting the RIAA over some of their players and I am sure they told the RIAA that they might not want to open that can of worms. Payola is still a bg problem and the RIAA still gives lip service to correcting it.
The webcasters, unfortunately, don't have the money to fight this fight. |
|
