[BC] Re: [BC The END of Internet Radio?

[Kevin Trueblood]

I'm still confused here, and perhaps somebody could point me in the right 
direction.

Over the air stations that stream, already have to pay royalties to the RIAA 
via Soundexchange.  These are the fees dramatically increasing.  Smaller 
market stations that stream, like us, are now going to be facing fees that 
are somewhere along the line of a tenfold increase?  If so, that instantly 
takes us out of the streaming market since we can get clients to cover the 
cost of the fees now, but any higher than that it's out of our range.

What I see for Internet broadcasters, is more conglomeration.  Same for 
every other business in existence it seems.  The little guys are completely 
priced out of the market.  It used to be easy for Ma Kettle to buy a radio 
station.  Today you have to cough up millions for even the smaller market 
stations.  Satellite radio was supposed to be the "savior of choice" and 
bring a bigger variety.  While offering more music choices, it's proposed to 
become one big company.  No competition in existence.

Internet radio was the final frontier.  A chance for the little guy to still 
have his voice.  These rates take them out of the running and make it so the 
largest companies are the only ones who can afford to continue operating. 
Survival of the fittest, indeed.

-Kevin



________________________________________________________
Message: 26
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:49:14 -0500
From: WFIFeng at aol.com
Subject: Re: [BC] The END of Internet Radio?
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <6652A60F.57FD984D.0018F55E at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

In a message dated 03/07/2007 10:07:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hykker at grolen.com writes:

> Why should webcasters get a free ride on music royalties?  I'm no fan of
>  the RIAA/BMI/ASCAP/et al either, but if some of us have to pay, then
>  everyone should.

I don't think the point of the article is that anyone is asking for a "free 
ride"... but what is wrong with the percentage of revenue model?

To borrow the example given in the article:
A WEBcaster brings-in $500,000 a year, and they pay 10%. That's high, but 
still somewhat reasonable. If the Mafiaa wants to jack that fee up to 
$600,000, please tell me how that is anything even close to being fair?

The Mafiaa is currenbtly getting $50,000 a year from that WEBcaster. Impose 
these disgusting rates, and they force said WEBcaster out of existance. Now 
they get squat. Who wins??

Reminds me of the line from "Wargames"...

"A very strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Willie...