--- Bob Olhsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From Dismuke: "... now that Congress has stepped
> into the
> picture, SoundExchange is under pressure to
> honestly and in good faith - something that it has
> done to date..."
> Sorry, I've got to call BS on this statement. This
> is opinion and not fact.
Well, it is a matter of fact and record that, in order
to get Congress off its back, SoundExchange make a
production of sending out a press release a few weeks
ago announcing that it was willing to agree to cap the
$500 per channel "administration fee" which would have
forced players such as Live 365 with 10,000 channels
to fork over $5 million just to be allowed to stay in
business ON TOP of any of the outrageously insane
royalties. at 5 channels or $2,500 per service.
Well, what SoundExchange did not reveal in its press
release or to Congress was the fine print. Such an
offer was good only through 2008. After that,
webcasters would once again have been on the hook for
an amount between them of over $1 billion - more money
than they would be paying in royalties.
OBVIOUSLY no webcaster this side of an INSANE ASSYLUM
is going to sign off on an agreement which would
accomplish NOTHING other than pushing the date of
their forced demise back two years - this time with
the webcasters own sanction and signature.
The weasles at SoundExchange are not stupid. They
knew that webcasters would never agree to such terms.
But that didn't matter and they announced their offer
to the public and Congress conveniently forgetting to
mention the fine print. They did it because they
wanted to get Congress and the public off their back.
They did it not in order to BECOME reasonable people
but, rather to APPEAR to be reasonable people in the
eyes of Congress and the general public.
THAT is what I mean by not negotiating honestly and in
good faith. And it is a matter of fact and public
record - NOT opinion.
As for webcasters not "negotiating" - well, here is a
principle that might perhaps be new and very radical
to you, Bob: THE TERMS OF ONE'S OWN MURDER IS **NOT**
A MATTER THAT IS OPEN TO NEGOTIATION.
"Murder" by the way is an accurate word as that is
exactly what RIAA/SoundExchange wishes to do to the
webcasting industry so that it can replace it with its
own version of Internet radio which would be a carbon
copy of the FM formats and playlists. They are
terrified that their status as "gatekeeper" to
all-important airplay will go away and now be in the
hands of thousands and thousands of webcasters whose
only standard for selection is their passion for the
music. If the RIAA labels lose their gatekeeper role
over who does and does not get airplay - well, the
artists will no longer have anything to do with the
RIAA labels. They will get much more money and more
control over their artistic product by going it alone
and retaining the ownership of their own music. The
major record labels are nothing more than middlemen
between the artists and consumers of recorded music -
and they take a HUGE cut out of the transaction giving
the artists but a pittance. In the past there was a
valid need for such middlemen as they served a purpose
that the artists were unable to do on their own.
Today, there is no longer a need for them as the
aritsts can either do it all on their own or, if they
cannot, they can outsource the tasks to people that
work on THEIR terms and not the other way around. And
rather than the obsolete middlemen taking such a huge
chunk out of the transaction, in the world of the
future the money will go to customers in the form of
lower prices and artists who will be entitled to 100%
of the profits.
Again, the subject of artifically propping up old
business models and discussions of the specific
process by which webcasters are being asked to
participate in their own demise is NOT a subject open