--- "Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Okeh...first, was there a loss of a digit, or a > badly dislocated > decimal point, in your opening paragrah? Yes - that was a typo on my part. > > Second, this imaginary station playing old discs of > "Ukranian folk > tunes" (which do, BTW, exist...!) Which is one of the glories of Internet radio and why it must be saved. > would also > presumably have a very > small number of listeners...so, unless there is a > "minimum fee > payable" for the station (quite possible...) a > listener-based fee > would probably be rather small! Say that there are > 12 aging Ukranians > who "tune in:" the show regularly...the bill would > be the per- > listener fee*12...am I right? Even if six more guys > went to the > site by accident while looking for Russian porn (so > any site using > the Cyrillic alphabet had to be visited...!) you are > now up to > *18. Or is this in error? To answer this, I will use the .0019 per song per listener rate that goes into effect in 2010. I will also assume that the Ukrainian folk music station plays on average 19 songs per hour (which is what Radio Dismuke averages). That works out to 3.61 cents per listener per hour. On the surface, that does not sound like much. But it is because it adds up very quickly. To use your example, let's assume that the station averages a mere 18 listeners at any given moment. That works out to 64.98 cents per hour or $15.60 per day. Over the course of a year that adds up to $5692 per year or $474 per month. And that ONLY covers the SoundExchange royalties. It does not cover any royalties which might be due to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC (which would be capped at under $900 per year for such a station assuming that it plays music from all three organizations). It does not cover the cost of bandwidth, stream hosting, broadcast software. And, of course, for a station of such a size, it assumes all time and labor is donated by the owner. How many people are going to cough up $474 per month SoundExchange royalties plus other expenses on top of their donated time and labor in order to stream music to an audience of a mere 18 people? And here is what makes that $474 per month sting even more: for a station that size playing such obscure music NOT ONE PENNY of that princely sum forked over to SoundExchage each month will ever likely make its way to the copyright holder or artist. Before SoundExchange will cut a royalty check, the copyright holder must first accumulate a minimum of $10 in royalties. At that .0019 rate, since the royalties are split 50/50 between artist and copyright holder, their recordings would have to stream to 10,526 listeners in order to qualify for a royalty check. (5263 listeners if the artist happened to be the copyright holder). What are the odds of a particular Ukrainian folk artist ever getting 10,526 listens in a year's time on tiny stations streaming only to 18 people at any time - ESPECIALLY when one considers that the DMCA forbids stations from playing a given artist more than an average of once per hour? Bottom line is that for stations playing extremely obscure artists, every single penny of the royalties that will most likely drive them off the air will go straight into the coffers of the RIAA puppets at SoundExchange. So if the station goes off the air - the RIAA wins as it is one less venue promoting alternatives to its mass market drivel. And if the station stays on the air, the RIAA wins again as SoundExchange collects $5692 per year that it does not have to pay to artists or copyright holders and can use to lobby for and purchase additional legislation to further strangle what few Internet stations manage to survive. And who loses in this scenario? The copyright holders and artists. A station playing Ukrainian folk music to 18 people at any given time is a WONDERFUL means of publicity to the artists and copyright holders whose work is aimed at such a niche market. What do you suppose such exposure is worth? What is the value one's music being known to more people? What is the value of adding to one's fan base? Let's say that such an artist is EXTREMELY lucky and his work somehow manages to achieve 10,526 listeners per year. He will get a check for $10. Whoopee! That will sure pay a lot of bills. Now let's say that the stations which play his recordings are forced to go off the air because of the SoundExchange royalties. He will then not even get the $10 - and he will lose out on all of the many benefits from exposure he was receiving from the station. Despite the propagandistic lies from SoundExchange, this is NOT about concern for artists. The money that the typical artist receives from SoundExchange is a pittance in the grand scheme of things. Don't bother to examine a folly - ask yourself what it accomplishes. What is accomplished by these royalties is that the only Internet radio stations that might have a chance to survive will be those stations which play lowest common denominator mass market stuff to large audiences. What it accomplishes is kills off emerging competitors to the RIAA's FM radio type drivel. Mr. Barr's premise that the rates would somehow be more affordable to smaller stations is very understandable at first glance. But the way things work out, it would actually be far easier for a station which streams to 10,000 listeners at any given time to make a go of it than it would a station which only streams to 18 listeners. Yes, they pay the same 3.61 cents per listener per hour. But a station with 10,000 listeners MIGHT have a chance to make money by selling commercials. Such a station MIGHT be able to sell commercials at $10 per thousand impressions three times per hour and, IF it was able to line up that many sponsors, it would be able to raise enough money to cover that hour's worth of SoundExchange royalties. If so, then it would have to turn around and sell additional commercials to cover all of its other expenses which, for a station that large, would likely include a staff. Of course, selling that many commercials is easier said than done. In the grand scheme of media buys, 10,000 listeners spread out all across the country or, worse, the world, is pretty tiny. But, on such a scale, on can at least begin to THINK about it. By contrast, there is NO WAY that a station with only 18 listeners could ever sell advertising. Think of the time and expense it would take merely to line up enough sponsors to run 3 commercials each and every hour. That alone would cost FAR more than what such a station could ever charge. And even if the station were giving away commercial spots for FREE, even then it would not be worth the while of any serious sponsor to give it consideration. The wages it would take to pay for the ad buyer's time speaking with the station owner and making the necessary arrangements for the spots to run would far exceed any benefit that the commercials might generate. Again, this is exactly what the RIAA hopes to accomplish - make it economically impossible to stream music to anything but large mass market audiences. In other words, it artificially creates on the Internet the same cost barriers that block out independent artists and niche genres from FM radio airplay. > > Finally, would it be possible for "emerging artists" > (i.e. me...!) to > sign something waiving all royalties due for "air" > play? Yes, it is possible - IF any webcaster was willing to go through the ENORMOUS amount of hassle and paperwork to do it. Imagine trying to track down the contact information for the owner of every recording one wished to play. What if the label went out of business a few years ago? SOMEBODY still owns the stuff - but how do you find out who? And then you have to keep track of who you have sent request out to and make follow ups on those you have not heard back from. Yes, it can be done - but how many people are willing to bother, especially if they are running a "labor of love" station that does not generate any money and they end up having to devote a considerable percentage of their precious free time on such paperwork? At some point, such a station operator is likely conclude that it is NOT worth it - which, again, is exactly what the RIAA wants. That kind of hassle is EXACTLY why Performance Rights Organizations (PRO) came into existence and why they are necessary. It is not practical for station owners to track down dozens, hundreds or thousands of copyright holders individually. Independent copyright holders who want Internet airplay and publicity NEED a PRO so that it can be easy for broadcasters to play their material. And yet, the **ONLY** PRO out there happens to be the SoundExchange monopoly which actively does everything it can to promote the RIAA's agenda of making it impossible for independents to get Internet airplay. Bottom line, what is needed is for as many people as possible to contact their elected representatives in both houses of Congress and let them know that you support the Internet Radio Equality Act which would set the statutory rates Internet stations must pay to the exact same percentage of revenue model that satellite radio pays.