Let me repack it: there people so Apple-fobic that tey would prefer to pay more just to see Apple take a hit.
Very smart, even more considering that if the music industry would succeed against Apple it would be just a matter of few months before prices for songs would begin to raise steadily.
But you can already buy music for the same or less at Amazon MP3 -- and DRM-free to boot. (I don't know what their track selection is, though.)
I also don't think people are Apple-phobic. Despite the grousing about Apple, I bet most of the people here like them a lot more than the RIAA or Big Music.
My point is that between protecting established vendors and encouraging new channels, I'd rather encourage new channels. Dropping royalties on small internet radio ventures to allow them to flourish and expand just as wireless broadband becomes common is something worth doing; protecting an inflexible, *blustering* established vendor with a deathgrip on a market, not so much.
I believe that Internet radio had a holiday from paying full royalties (although I think that expired or is near expiring).
However, I agree with Fritzly that you are comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges. Internet radio streams whatever the person (or computer program) on the other end of the pipe wants to play; with downloadable music, you get to play what you want, when you want. Both have their merits, but they really aren't comparable.
Where is the 'Economic Justice?!' If iTunes will become unprofitable, the US Congress should step in and subsidize the site! The US Gov't should seize iTunes (Algore is already on the Board of Apple). Then Obama (after becoming Pres.) should tax the rich to lower the cost of all iTunes. After all, Music and the Arts is a right (see PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts), not a privilege! Bottom line, Madonna and Snoop Dog deserve more money and the "rich" (not me) should pay for it!!!!!
I believe that Internet radio had a holiday from paying full royalties (although I think that expired or is near expiring).
***long quote trimmed by mod JD***
Of course my question is why should Internet radio stations pay a higher royalty fee than terrestrial stations? What about music being broadcast over the Internet justifies a higher fee? It's pure and simple a money grab by the Music Cos.
I'm not privy to the individual agreements, but rumor has it that the Music companies are so intent on breaking Apple's lock on digital downloads they are offering "better" deals to the competition right now. Some labels even refuse to offer DRM free music to Apple, while offering it to Amazon and others.
I don't understand why this is a bad thing. Until recently Apple had a virtual monopoly in the digital music distribution field pretty much leaving the record companies at the mercy of Steve Jobs. Offering other digital music shops like Amazon, Napster and eMusic better deals than they offer Apple essentially creates competition for Apple so they no longer have a strangle hold on the market.
While it would be nice it is just unrealistic to expect everyone to be treated fairly in this business. Heck if everyone was treated fairly in this business there would most likely be no business at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whydidnt
Of course my question is why should Internet radio stations pay a higher royalty fee than terrestrial stations? What about music being broadcast over the Internet justifies a higher fee? It's pure and simple a money grab by the Music Cos.
Well when you think about it, streaming music over the Internet lets you broadcast to an infinitely greater numbers of individuals than you would with a regular terrestrial station. It is unreasonable to think the music industry should charge equally for Internet radio and FM radio when the audience is not equal and can greatly differ in size.
But you can already buy music for the same or less at Amazon MP3
No - *you* can already buy mp3s at Amazon. I live outside the USA and I can't do so. Neither can I get anything from iTunes at anything like a local equivalent of 99 cents.
DRM-free music downloads available from multiple sources, and available worldwide, sounds like the sort of sensible market situation that our legislators are supposed to encourage, and to require if necessary. However, they are not doing their job very well right now, so the monopolies are fighting it out for control. The music industry pretty much owns the content and iTunes pretty much
owns the customers. Neither of them care a hoot about what the artists or the customers want.
Unless I've missed something, Apple pays 70 cents for every track, of which the artist gets 9 cents from the publisher...
How much work exactly has the publisher done to sell this track? It seems to me that the greed accusation has to be laid squarely at the music industry's doorstep.
If iTunes wasn't such a runaway success, legitimate music sales would be even smaller than they are at the moment.
Well when you think about it, streaming music over the Internet lets you broadcast to an infinitely greater numbers of individuals than you would with a regular terrestrial station. It is unreasonable to think the music industry should charge equally for Internet radio and FM radio when the audience is not equal and can greatly differ in size.
I don't agree with that argument. Does a 50,000 watt station pay more in royalty fees than a 10,000 watt station? Do New York city stations pay more than West Bend, Indiana stations? Why should an Internet station pay more because their potential market it larger, remember they are competing with a larger market as well. Plus, by its nature (changing slowly) Internet stations don't have as many or as flexible listening outposts, such as cars. The size of a potential market should have little to do with the cost of a service provided. The cost should be based on what the market itself will bear. However, in the case of music, there isn't a free-market. Rather a conglomeration of big business and a "Royalty-Board" that decide and dictate the cost outside of any true market pressures.
...Why should an Internet station pay more because their potential market it larger, remember they are competing with a larger market as well.
The size of the market should have everything to do with royalty fees as it does with their advertising agreements. You get paid more for having more listeners, why not pay more in royalties for the same thing?
You seem to be forgetting something very important. The music doesn't belong to these Internet radio stations. They are in turn making money selling another individuals or companies product. At the same time the music industry doesn't want Internet radio to take off and they have every right to charge what they want to prevent it from taking off, it is after all their product.
The size of the market should have everything to do with royalty fees as it does with their advertising agreements. You get paid more for having more listeners, why not pay more in royalties for the same thing
Ah, but the assumption there is that the ads sold by these Internet streaming stations also scale up proportionately...and I'm not sure that's true. Can an online radio station sell ads for 100x more than it can sell a local ad? If it can't, then the math doesn't work out in their favour...
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Price Increases
Linear Mode
LinkBacks (?)
