Print

Print


I  wrote:

 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. 
> 


Actually, I played with the numbers and determined
that getting such a number of listens from a station
streaming to 18 listeners could actually be done.  So
my remark about none of the royalty money on a station
that size going to artists was not accurate. 

Assuming that an artist is played the maximum amout
allowed by law then 18 listeners per hour times 24
hours = 432 plays.  Multiply that by 365 per year and
the number is 157680 plays.  Times .0019 cents that
comes to $299 per year - which would make the artist's
share $150 per year or about $12.50 per month.   That
would be the MOST he could make off of a station
averaging 18 listeners because it would be illegal for
the station to play his material more frequently than
that. 

But, of course, these numbers are academic because, at
such a rate, such a station would almost definitely be
forced off the air - in which case the artist would
get NOTHING.  For such an artist to start planning on
spending his $12.50 per month - well, that would sort
of like the pencil manfacturer counting on all the
money he will bring in after he raises the price of
the common ordinary pencils he sells up to $50 each.