Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Commonsense Proposal On Net Radio Rates

Posted by kdawson on from the knows-whereof-he-speaks dept.

quark235 tips us to an open letter to the RIAA, proposing a fairer royalty structure for Net radio, written by Paul A. Gathard. Gathard is president of Barnabus Road Media, a company that provides streaming radio services to commercial and non-commercial stations across the US. He contends that his proposed rate structure, if implemented, would actually result in higher total revenues to SoundExchange than their current proposal would, after it kills off 90% of Net radio stations.

4 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Not the point. by Hsensei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't the whole point to kill off 90% of internet radio?

    --
    ~
  2. Except it isn't about income... by AVee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is all about control, not about net income. So killing 90% of the web radio stations is better than a higher income because it is easier to control a few radio stations and because those pesky small independent stations will be the first to go down.
    When that has been dealt with the income issue will be revisited. Raising income is a lot easier when your monopoly is still intact, maintain the monopoly and the income will come anyway. Currently it is the monopoly that is being defended and any plan which does not include maintaining the monopoly is a bad idea, even when it increases revenue.

  3. Revenue isn't the issue here, DRM is... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We already know that the reason for the extremely high rates are because the RIAA really wants this simply to have DRM used on the streaming stations. That was already proved in recent negotiations over the rates. Since the RIAA's lobbying efforts in having the FCC mandate DRM onto the medium failed, they are now trying to do the same thing by forcing licensing fees that are extremely high on the stations.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  4. Understand the audience by zzatz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not the radio listening audience, the audience for the open letter.

    The author isn't trying to persuade the RIAA to be fair, that's impossible. That's why he wrote an open letter; a letter to the public ostensibly addressed to, but not really intended for, the RIAA.

    The music business and its RIAA front will not change their agenda. They've given Congress their marching orders, accompanied by bales of money. Politicians understand that voters often vote for the candidate with the largest budget for ads. And it's not just the direct campaign contributions, it's that most of the music business is owned by media companies, the companies that own the TV and radio stations, newspapers, and even web sites that politicians advertize with. Why do you suppose that newspapers NEVER challenge the RIAA spin on any story?

    The letter is intended for the public, and voters in particular. Politicans need cover before standing up to the RIAA. When voters write and call, that helps counter the RIAA fundraising. Float a fair and reasonable proposal, and shift the burden to the RIAA of explaining the RIAA plan.

    Write or call your elected officials. Many would like to do the right thing. Give them hope that doing the right thing won't end their careers.