Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: WAMU 88.5 to Join Webcasters in "Day of Silence" June 26

[Dismuke <dismukemail@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> > 
> Okeh...first, was there a loss of a digit, or a
> badly dislocated
> decimal point, in your opening paragrah? 

Yes - that was a typo on my part.


> 
> Second, this imaginary station playing old discs of
> "Ukranian folk
> tunes" (which do, BTW, exist...!) 

Which is one of the glories of Internet radio and why
it must be saved. 


> would also
> presumably have a very
> small number of listeners...so, unless there is a
> "minimum fee
> payable" for the station (quite possible...) a
> listener-based fee
> would probably be rather small! Say that there are
> 12 aging Ukranians
> who "tune in:" the show regularly...the bill would
> be the per-
> listener fee*12...am I right? Even if six more guys
> went to the
> site by accident while looking for Russian porn (so
> any site using
> the Cyrillic alphabet had to be visited...!) you are
> now up to
> *18. Or is this in error?


To answer this, I will use the .0019 per song per
listener rate that goes into effect in 2010.  I will
also assume that the Ukrainian folk music station
plays on average 19 songs per hour (which is what
Radio Dismuke averages).

That works out to 3.61 cents per listener per hour. 
On the surface, that does not sound like much.  But it
is because it adds up very quickly.  To use your
example, let's assume that the station averages a mere
18 listeners at any given moment.   That works out to
64.98 cents per hour or $15.60 per day.  Over the
course of a year that adds up to $5692 per year or
$474 per month.  And that ONLY covers the
SoundExchange royalties.  It does not cover any
royalties which might be due to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC (which
would be capped at under $900 per year for such a
station assuming that it plays music from all three
organizations).  It does not  cover the cost of
bandwidth, stream hosting, broadcast software.  And,
of course, for a station of such a size, it assumes
all time and labor is donated by the owner.

How many people are going to cough up $474 per month
SoundExchange royalties plus other expenses on top of
their donated time and labor in order to stream music
to an audience of a mere 18 people? 

And here is what makes that $474 per month sting even
more: for a station that size playing such obscure
music NOT ONE PENNY of that princely sum forked over
to SoundExchage each month will ever likely make its
way to the copyright holder or artist.   Before
SoundExchange will cut a royalty check, the copyright
holder must first accumulate a minimum of $10 in
royalties.  At that .0019 rate, since the royalties
are split 50/50 between artist and copyright holder,
their recordings would have to stream to 10,526
listeners in order to qualify for a royalty check.
(5263 listeners if the artist happened to be the
copyright holder).  What are the odds of a particular
Ukrainian folk artist ever getting 10,526 listens in a
year's time on tiny stations streaming only to 18
people at any time - ESPECIALLY when one considers
that the DMCA forbids stations from playing a given
artist more than an average of once per hour?  

Bottom line is that for stations playing extremely
obscure artists, every single penny of the royalties
that will most likely drive them off the air will go
straight into the coffers of the RIAA puppets at
SoundExchange.   So if the station goes off the air -
the RIAA wins as it is one less venue promoting
alternatives to its mass market drivel.  And if the
station stays on the air, the RIAA wins again as
SoundExchange collects $5692 per year that it does not
have to pay to artists or copyright holders and can
use to lobby for and purchase additional legislation
to further strangle what few Internet stations manage
to survive. 

And who loses in this scenario? The copyright holders
and artists.  A station playing Ukrainian folk music
to 18 people at any given time is a WONDERFUL means of
publicity to the artists and copyright holders whose
work is aimed at such a niche market. What do you
suppose such exposure is worth? What is the value
one's music being known to more people?  What is the
value of adding to one's fan base?  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. 

Despite the propagandistic lies from SoundExchange,
this is NOT about concern for artists.  The money that
the typical artist receives from SoundExchange is a
pittance in the grand scheme of things.  Don't bother
to examine a folly - ask yourself what it
accomplishes.  What is accomplished by these royalties
is that the only Internet radio stations that might
have a chance to survive will be those stations which
play lowest common denominator mass market stuff to
large audiences.  What it accomplishes is kills off
emerging competitors to the RIAA's FM radio type
drivel.

Mr. Barr's premise that the rates would somehow be
more affordable to smaller stations is very
understandable at first glance.  But the way things
work out, it would actually be far easier for a
station which streams to 10,000 listeners at any given
time to make a go of it than it would a station which
only streams to 18 listeners.  Yes, they pay the same
3.61 cents per listener per hour.  But a station with
10,000 listeners MIGHT have a chance to make money by
selling commercials.  Such a station MIGHT be able to
sell commercials at $10 per thousand impressions three
times per hour and, IF it was able to line up that
many sponsors, it would be able to raise enough money
to cover that hour's worth of SoundExchange royalties.
 If so,  then it would have to turn around and sell
additional commercials to cover all of its other
expenses which, for a station that large, would likely
include a staff.  Of course, selling that many
commercials is easier said than done.  In the grand
scheme of media buys, 10,000 listeners spread out all
across the country or, worse, the world, is pretty
tiny.  But, on such a scale, on can at least begin to
THINK about it.

By contrast, there is NO WAY that a station with only
18 listeners could ever sell advertising.  Think of
the time and expense it would take merely to line up
enough sponsors to run 3 commercials each and every
hour.   That alone would cost FAR more than what such
a station could ever charge.   And even if the station
were giving away commercial spots for FREE, even then
it would not be worth the while of any serious sponsor
to give it consideration.  The wages it would take to
pay for the ad buyer's time speaking with the station
owner and making the necessary arrangements for the
spots to run would far exceed any benefit that the
commercials might generate. 

Again, this is exactly what the RIAA hopes to
accomplish - make it economically impossible to stream
music to anything but large mass market audiences.  In
other words, it artificially creates on the Internet
the same cost barriers that block out independent
artists and niche genres from FM radio airplay. 



> 
> Finally, would it be possible for "emerging artists"
> (i.e. me...!) to
> sign something waiving all royalties due for "air"
> play? 


Yes, it is possible - IF any webcaster was willing to
go through the ENORMOUS amount of hassle and paperwork
to do it.  Imagine trying to track down the contact
information for the owner of every recording one
wished to play.  What if the label went out of
business a few years ago?  SOMEBODY still owns the
stuff - but how do you find out who?  And then you
have to keep track of who you have sent request out to
and make follow ups on those you have not heard back
from.  Yes, it can be done - but how many people are
willing to bother, especially if they are running a
"labor of love" station that does not generate any
money and they end up having to devote a considerable
percentage of their precious free time on such
paperwork?  At some point, such a station operator is
likely conclude that it is NOT worth it - which,
again, is exactly what the RIAA wants. 

That kind of hassle is EXACTLY why Performance Rights
Organizations (PRO) came into existence and why they
are necessary.  It is not practical for station owners
to track down dozens, hundreds or thousands of
copyright holders individually. Independent copyright
holders who want Internet airplay and publicity NEED a
PRO so that it can be easy for broadcasters to play
their material.  And yet, the **ONLY** PRO out there
happens to be the SoundExchange monopoly which
actively does everything it can to promote the RIAA's
agenda of making it impossible for independents to get
Internet airplay. 

Bottom line, what is needed is for as many people as
possible to contact their elected representatives in
both houses of Congress and let them know that you
support the Internet Radio Equality Act which would
set the statutory rates Internet stations must pay to
the exact same percentage of revenue model that
satellite radio pays.