Re: Good POINT Zvonar, and real cost. (was Re: CARP passed- this sucks.)

["Stephen P. Goodman" <spgoodman@earthlight.net>]

Mark, you're assuming that the people who would have to keep track of all 
of
those payments and accruals would work for free.  Under the
originally-proposed legislation - the stuff that initially got thrown out 
in
May, but you can be sure it'll be back if this stuff sticks - one had to
create an escrow company - with employees, dig? - to operate the
royalty/copyright business.  This is what really knocks everyone but the 
Big
Five out, not the royalty payments themselves.  Which is what the RIAA and
the Big Five want.  No competition.

Like I have said before there's no problem with any and all of us getting
paid.  It's the manditory middlemen that would truly kill our ability to be
heard.

Stephen P. Goodman
EarthLight Productions
*
http://www.earthlight.net/Studios - The Free Loop of the Week!
http://www.earthlight.net/Gallery_Front.html - Cartoons!
http://www.earthlight.net/HiddenTrack.html - More Cartoons!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sottilaro" <sine@zerocrossing.net>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 20:12 PM
Subject: Good POINT Zvonar, and real cost. (was Re: CARP passed- this
sucks.)


> First, I want to say that I think for me Richard's post totally nailed my
> sentiment about the whole issue.
>
> Second, I did a little math, just for fun:
>
> Assuming an average song lasts 5 minutes you can get about 288 songs
> played in a 24 hour period.
>
> 288*.07 cents = 20.16 cents
>
> That's about a $1.41 a week.
>
> So, that basically means it would cost in the neighborhood of $5.64 a
> month to broadcast 24 hours a day for a month.  This fee is going to stop
> internet radio?  Am I missing something here?  I know there are already
> costs involved in running an internet radio station, but I would imagine
> that the $5-6 a month would be a pretty small part of the overall cost,
> no?  I'm I wrong in assuming that .07 cents per performance would imply
> that once you streamed the song, you'd pay that fee once.  Am I wrong?
>
> Mark Sottilaro
>
> Richard Zvonar, PhD wrote:
>
>
> > My position is that one of the prime virtues of the Web is its
> > ability to support a large community of "marginal" on-line
> > publishers. The sheer variety of obscure and diverse material that is
> > made available through such a grass-roots system is to the benefit of
> > all of us (enriching the "gene pool"). In contrast to this we have
> > the "commercial" publishers who have to be concerned with the bottom
> > line, with the resulting proliferation of ads and boiling down of
> > programming to only the most popular material ("inbreeding").
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>