AbsolutePunk.net

AbsolutePunk.net (http://www.absolutepunk.net/forum.php)
-  News (http://www.absolutepunk.net/forumdisplay.php?f=165)
  -  The Internet Radio Fairness Act (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=2926692)

Jason Tate 10/19/12 11:55 AM

The Internet Radio Fairness Act
 
The Internet Radio Fairness Act is a proposed bill that would cut royalties for musicians made from internet radio sites like Pandora or Spotify by "85%," according to sources. This is an interesting, developing, story ... and one to keep an eye on.

Submitted by Uncalled Four

seventwenty3 10/19/12 12:04 PM

The difference is you can choose what you hear with the internet stuff most of the time, and skip songs. all other radio stations don't have the skip function. Makes sense they'd have to pay more if they are offering the ability to chose exactly what you hear most of the time.

EDIT: I'd like to see actual numbers over time for these guys, but Internet Radio should have to pay a higher fee as it makes listening to almost anything at any second possible.

lp670sv 10/19/12 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventwenty3 (Post 114385682)
The difference is you can choose what you hear with the internet stuff most of the time, and skip songs. all other radio stations don't have the skip function. Makes sense they'd have to pay more if they are offering the ability to chose exactly what you hear most of the time.

EDIT: I'd like to see actual numbers over time for these guys, but Internet Radio should have to pay a higher fee as it makes listening to almost anything at any second possible.

Your edit makes no sense, why would you charge more money in that situation? I don't know about Pandora but spotify pays on a per stream basis so why the hell would you charge them MORE money for more plays? That could ruin these companies.

iseejosh 10/19/12 12:24 PM

I think artists need to think about if the publicity sites like Pandora or Spotify are giving them is worth letting the sites use their music. Or if the actual sites themselves get subscribers/hits because of the easy access to big name artists like the Drakes and Laday Gagas. Seems like a compromise must be made between the artists/sites and a pay service depending on how popular the artist is.

emery3993 10/19/12 12:24 PM

it is crazy to me that a minimum of 25% of Pandora's annual revenue is given in royalties, yet on an individual basis artists get fractions of a cent

anamericangod 10/19/12 12:31 PM

Ah, the old dividing by zero trick.

njdevils327 10/19/12 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anamericangod (Post 114386702)
Ah, the old dividing by zero trick.

this

UnderMyDreams 10/19/12 01:29 PM

If you're an Internet radio station made to let fans listen to artists, stop bitching about having to pay too much to artists. That's just uncool.

Beatzero 10/19/12 06:04 PM

The problem with this is that its main goal is to make internet radio "fair" so that it pays the same worthless rate that terrestrial radio does. Its basically saying "terrestrial radio is allowed to give shitty pay to artists, so internet radio should, too." A race to the bottom essentially.

Obviously, the problem is that it's comparing things that are now unrelated, as internet radio is very different from its traditional counterpart. The good news is that it's not gaining much ground. For example, the cited article was posted almost a month ago, and it's only now being posted on here. It's an unfair bill that (logical) people are hesitant to support, and it's not going to gain any ground in its current state. Add this to the fact that the majority of people don't understand the business model and royalty rate of internet radio, and it's just a large headache.

daftpunker45 10/19/12 06:21 PM

Nope.

bladerdude360 10/19/12 09:13 PM

Very interested to see how this plays out.

brokenwings 10/20/12 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt Retenauer (Post 114386472)
Am I misunderstanding the post, or don't artists already make fractions of a cent on internet streams? How could it possibly be decreased any more?

This.

UnderMyDreams 10/20/12 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt Retenauer (Post 114386472)
Am I misunderstanding the post, or don't artists already make fractions of a cent on internet streams? How could it possibly be decreased any more?


You take a fraction of a cent; and multiply that by .85.

For example, if an artist gets .01 cents every time a song is played, they would now make .00085 cents every time a song is played.

kaylasananjou 10/20/12 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt Retenauer (Post 114386472)
Am I misunderstanding the post, or don't artists already make fractions of a cent on internet streams? How could it possibly be decreased any more?

Exactly this. I love Spotify, but it's a bit of a moral quandary for me to use in the first place, since the artist is getting a fraction of a cent. If they cut it down to a fraction of a fraction...of a FRACTION of a cent, I'm not sure I can continue to use it.

UnderMyDreams 10/20/12 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurt Retenauer (Post 114407822)
You misunderstood my disgruntled state with actual confusion.


Ahh. Gotcha.

In any case, what would make more sense would be to raise the Satelite radio rates.

If you take the small rates as they are, and slash them 85%, the only people who end up hurt are the artists.

Pandora sends emails about this shit all the time, and it's getting quite god damn annoying to keep receiving emails saying "hey we pay too think we pay much to artists and we want more money in our pockets and less in theirs, help us screw the artists out of money!"