((20,000,000,000/4,000,000)*10)*0.0007= ((20,00 0/4)*10)*0.0007= $35.00 NOT $3.50
(unless I mis-read the $/song)
Either way, $0.0007/song beats the $0.79/song currently offered by Apple. I would have to play it or stream it to others 1129 times before it would cost me $.79 for just the one song.
If the scenario in the article were indeed logical, would still be worth it? Read on:
The article, however, happens to be a case of use of bad math. This is the math you should really be interested in:
Here is the math for streaming that equvilates to 1000 people streaming one (non-commercial/non-DJ) radio station's site 24/7/30:
Example 1: 360*1,000*30*0.0007=$7,560/month in RIAA fees
360 (4 minute songs) 1,000 people streaming 24/7 (ultra popular site) 30 days in an average month $.0007 / song
This would be ugly if they had 1,000,000 people streaming the same station. Besides, since it's a non-commercial station and no one is making any money off of it, why should it be any different than letting your friends come over and hear your collection of tapes and CDs.
Example 2: Closer to reality: 270*1,000*30*0.0007=$5,670/month in RIAA fees
270 4 minute songs 1,000 people streaming 24/7 (ultra popular site) 30 days in an average month $.0007 / song
This gives you 18 hours of music time and 6 hours of DJ/news/commercial time. Assuming that commercial time is 3 of those 6 hours, the station would need to sell commercial time for at least $31.50/minute just to cover the RIAA fees.
Unfortunately, the numbers are not added that way and and most radio stations can't even afford to stream music. Unfortunately if a radio station has 1,000,000 listeners, that is what gets used to figure out streaming revenues not actual streaming numbers.
A bit of a problem for a real radio station but imposible for internet geek Joe Blow with his own lp-FM radio station with internet radio streaming.
On the other hand Joe Blow will probably not have a lp-FM station and only be be one of 100,000+ people with their own version of a custom internet radio station and perhaps 5 people (at most) will stream on average (a guess) 4 hours a day.
60*5*0.0007=$.21/day
60 (4 minute songs) 5 streams $.0007 / song
I ask you, why would I want to pay the RIAA (of all entities) $.21 per day just to allow others to listen to the songs I like? Besides I already paid for my right to listen when I bought the CD.
How could the RIAA guarantee collection of the (in this case) $.042 per 60 song stream? Who is going to guarantee the money gets from the listener to the RIAA if the money doesn't go directly to or is not collected directly by the RIAA? (like I care if the RIAA gets their money, but I know they do and they will get more say than us on deciding if this will be a tolerable solution or not)
The only way this will work is if the streaming is a non-capturable/encrypted format, use of separate paid up front accounts in each listener's name and The listener gets to choose what songs he/she/it is interested in and not what I want them to hear. That or the fidelity must be reduced to that of a lp record or a well used tape. Of course then there is subscription digital radio but even that has it's downsides.
AND....
Since the internet is unstable and streaming has it's pit falls. These are such as drop outs, poor fidelity and firewall issues. Plus corporations are not really all that interested in people using corporate owned bandwidth for personal audio streaming. Add it all up and you get "it ain't worth it". At least not just to line the pocketbooks of the RIAA.
To make (almost) everyone happy...
The only system that will work would be to build a system from the ground up supporting all media types: CD, DVD, tape, DAT, audio streaming and some sort of 'per song' file storage method (ie: wm?/mp?/
Slashdot Mirror
Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
((20,000,000,000/4,000,000)*10)*0.0007=
((20,00 0/4)*10)*0.0007=
$35.00 NOT $3.50
(unless I mis-read the $/song)
Either way, $0.0007/song beats the $0.79/song currently offered by Apple. I would have to play it or stream it to others 1129 times before it would cost me $.79 for just the one song.
If the scenario in the article were indeed logical, would still be worth it? Read on:
The article, however, happens to be a case of use of bad math. This is the math you should really be interested in:
Here is the math for streaming that equvilates to 1000 people streaming one (non-commercial/non-DJ) radio station's site 24/7/30:
Example 1:
360*1,000*30*0.0007=$7,560/month in RIAA fees
360 (4 minute songs)
1,000 people streaming 24/7 (ultra popular site)
30 days in an average month
$.0007 / song
This would be ugly if they had 1,000,000 people streaming the same station. Besides, since it's a non-commercial station and no one is making any money off of it, why should it be any different than letting your friends come over and hear your collection of tapes and CDs.
Example 2:
Closer to reality:
270*1,000*30*0.0007=$5,670/month in RIAA fees
270 4 minute songs
1,000 people streaming 24/7 (ultra popular site)
30 days in an average month
$.0007 / song
This gives you 18 hours of music time and 6 hours of DJ/news/commercial time. Assuming that commercial time is 3 of those 6 hours, the station would need to sell commercial time for at least $31.50/minute just to cover the RIAA fees.
Unfortunately, the numbers are not added that way and and most radio stations can't even afford to stream music. Unfortunately if a radio station has 1,000,000 listeners, that is what gets used to figure out streaming revenues not actual streaming numbers.
A bit of a problem for a real radio station but imposible for internet geek Joe Blow with his own lp-FM radio station with internet radio streaming.
On the other hand Joe Blow will probably not have a lp-FM station and only be be one of 100,000+ people with their own version of a custom internet radio station and perhaps 5 people (at most) will stream on average (a guess) 4 hours a day.
60*5*0.0007=$.21/day
60 (4 minute songs)
5 streams
$.0007 / song
I ask you, why would I want to pay the RIAA (of all entities) $.21 per day just to allow others to listen to the songs I like? Besides I already paid for my right to listen when I bought the CD.
How could the RIAA guarantee collection of the (in this case) $.042 per 60 song stream? Who is going to guarantee the money gets from the listener to the RIAA if the money doesn't go directly to or is not collected directly by the RIAA? (like I care if the RIAA gets their money, but I know they do and they will get more say than us on deciding if this will be a tolerable solution or not)
The only way this will work is if the streaming is a non-capturable/encrypted format, use of separate paid up front accounts in each listener's name and The listener gets to choose what songs he/she/it is interested in and not what I want them to hear. That or the fidelity must be reduced to that of a lp record or a well used tape. Of course then there is subscription digital radio but even that has it's downsides.
AND....
Since the internet is unstable and streaming has it's pit falls. These are such as drop outs, poor fidelity and firewall issues. Plus corporations are not really all that interested in people using corporate owned bandwidth for personal audio streaming. Add it all up and you get "it ain't worth it". At least not just to line the pocketbooks of the RIAA.
To make (almost) everyone happy...
The only system that will work would be to build a system from the ground up supporting all media types: CD, DVD, tape, DAT, audio streaming and some sort of 'per song' file storage method (ie: wm?/mp?/