[mastercheif]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ts-appeal.html

 

[Carl]

Mmmm, these golden egg laying geese sure are tasty.

 

[DrBenway]

This is a bit like people crawling over each other to get back into a swamped lifeboat. The majors stubbornly refuse to adapt their business/revenue model to reality, so they are trying to squeeze cash flow out of whoever and whatever they can. This just keeps getting sicker.

What makes me the angriest is that the major labels never fail to claim that they are doing this on behalf of musicians. Oh pulleeeezzze. Gotta make the payments on the boat, the country place, and the Manhattan condo.

 

[Geoff Rymer]

Can someone enlighten me as to how this is actually supposed to work? What happens if the internet radio station in question is based in a part of the world where royalties are not paid on radio play? Is there any reason the stations' servers can't just be moved to one of these countries?

 

[<GNEFF> killbot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is a bit like people crawling over each other to get back into a swamped lifeboat. The majors stubbornly refuse to adapt their business/revenue model to reality, so they are trying to squeeze cash flow out of whoever and whatever they can. This just keeps getting sicker. What makes me the angriest is that the major labels never fail to claim that they are doing this on behalf of musicians. Oh pulleeeezzze. Gotta make the payments on the boat, the country place, and the Manhattan condo.

Yes DrBenway, but how would you feel if somebody stole your stuff, say, like your avartar?

BTW you owe me 15.000.000.000 USD. I accept Paypal

 

[Geoff Rymer]

Nevermind that, which of you has Elvis' DEA badge?

 

[zotjen]

I would think record companies will see less royalties if this goes through since most internet stations will be forced to go under. Also, how does this affect OTA stations that also stream on the Internet?

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mmmm, these golden egg laying geese sure are tasty.

LOL, so true. So true.

-Ed

 

[Thelonious Monk]

shame shame, america. where's all the love gone?

 

[electrathecat]

I thought all radio was already dead.

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would think record companies will see less royalties if this goes through since most internet stations will be forced to go under. Also, how does this affect OTA stations that also stream on the Internet?

It will also kill OTA stations that stream on the Internet. That's why NPR (National Public Radio) was the one spearheading the appeal. They now have to decide between stopping their Internet streams, paying the exorbitant fees, or stripping music from programs before Internet streaming (if that's even practical).

 

[wafflesomd]

Well, (just a joke)

Get your stream ripper's out folks!

 

[archosman]

Ran this by my record label buddy and here's what he had to say...



Yeah, I saw that. People have got to realize that record companies do
own the content and should be fairly compensated for it. It the same as
if the streamers were streaming TV shows or music, but for some reason
people associate music with "free." The rate does seem a bit outrageous
to me though. Every song sent to every listener would net SoundExchange
$0.0011. Certainly there is a more fair way to do this.

Don't get me started on how the CRB's flat statutory rate for mechanical
usages (song on a CD, etc) is screwed up. It's a flat rate on that
too... Currently .091 per track. That means .91 of income on each 10
track CD pressed and sold goes to the publishers, not the record
company. And 1.82 on each 20 track CD unless the record company has
negotiated a reduced rate with the publishers (eg 1.365 on a 75% rate.)
Now 1.365 + .75 per unit manufacturing + .25 per unit shipping = 2.365
That's before the artist gets a royalty or the record company makes any
money. Add 1.00 profit + 1.00 marketing cost + 1.00 artist royalty and
you're already at 5.365 per unit. Retailers generally use a 35% markup,
so 5.365 X 1.35 = $7.24 consumer cost on that 20 track CD. Oh, but
wait, I forgot to figure in the cost of recording the damn thing. Not
to mention that $1.00 marketing cost is way too low if you actually want
people to know the CD exists....

Is it any wonder CDs cost as much as they do? Oh, and most people
probably don't realized that most of the record companies are losing
their ass on those $7.99 and $9.99 new artist release CDs.

Geez. I got on a tangent. Anyway, the way they do mechanical royalties
in the UK is by charging 12% of whatever the dealer cost is... So, if
you are selling a $5.365 20 track CD at wholesale, the publishers would
get a total of $0.64 in mechanical royalties -vs- $1.365 in the states
on a CD with a negotiated 75% rate. No negotiation necessary. Which is
why I'm saying the Copyright Review Board are a bunch of idiots for
setting up these fixed rates rather than using percentages.

 

[MdRex]

Archosman:

Thanks for posting that, they should put things into perspective when people starts whining about how labels are making lots of money from CD sales.

 

[archosman]

My old roommate does marketing for an independent label.