| VIP |
|---|
Subscribe to become a VIP member of SST!
· Request More Often
· Unshared Requests
· Request Countdown Timer
· Request Ready Indicator
· Your Request History
· Access To The VIP Forum
· Add More Favorites
:: Click Here To Upgrade ::
:: Give VIP as a Gift ::
|
|
|
|
View previous topic ::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
 JERIC 
Fleet Admiral (Proprietor)
Joined: Feb 12, 2002
Member#: 1
Posts: 4939
Location: Richmond, VA
     
     |
 Posted:
Tue May 07, 2002 12:18 pm Post subject: Bans |
 
|
quote:
Originally posted by Baby JP{FU}:
Just as broadcasters are free to (and have been free to)broadcast songs for free until CARP and the independent webcasters can agree on a %of revenue compromise.
-------------------------------------------------
I hope I'm not twisting your quote out of context but I just wanted to make something clear.
$1,000/yr. licenses
$100/yr. for webhosting & domain
$150/yr. software
$50/mo. source bandwidth
$150/mo. relay bandwidth, but more if the station ever grows
$150/mo. average for content, new soundtracks etc.
That is hardly free. And on top of that...
$735/mo. ($38,220) if CARP gets their recommendation.
As you can see, StreamingSoundtracks.com is already deep in the negative. Revenues are a very small fraction of costs, not to be ungrateful. Without the donations already received my wife would have pulled the plug a long time ago, LOL. I really think webcasters should be rewarded for promoting the music instead of getting punished. We should all be lobbying for that instead of just trying to get back to zero by knocking CARP down. Any compromise where the webcaster has to pay ANYTHING is unacceptable. At the minimum, they need to through CARP's recommendation out and waive the licensing fees and for god's sake send me some promotional material!!! They owe US, not the other way around!
_________________
"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?." -Maximus
Please do not PM me. Use email, Feedback or Contact Us links. |
|
 |
BabyJP-FU-
Ensign
Joined: May 06, 2002
Member#: 84
Posts: 24
Location: West Los Angeles
|
|
Posted:
Tue May 07, 2002 12:51 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
quote:
Originally posted by JERIC:
[QB]That is hardly free. And on top of that...
$735/mo. ($38,220) if CARP gets their recommendation.[qb]
-------------------------------------------------
Jeric -
By no means did I mean free as in cover all expenses in broadcasting. I know better than that. I'm totally against CARP charging ANYTHING on top of the already mounting expenses to broadcasting internet radio.
I'm just merely trying to exemplify the point of how the law can be manupilated by the powerful to annahilate percieved threat to the the big corporations, and hurt broadcasters, listeners, and artists. And how those executive swines up there are scared that they might not be able to send their 5 bratty punk kids to the Beverly Hills day camp this summer. This pisses me off because the law is what determines what's right and wrong, and to have these goofball pigs determine what's right and what's wrong for the industry is a travesty. That's all I'm saying. I think the rules and proposed standards in this case should heavily involve the interest of the public and the artists more than CARP or RIAA. After all.. we listen to artists, and artists make the music. Those a-holes up in their offices are slowly realizing that the new technology makes it that much easier to eliminate the middle man, and as a result, they took a big dump in their pants. And since they're pissed off because the new technology ruined their $800 versace slacks, they're gonna do everything in their power(and they have lots of power..because they have lots of money.. because they screwed lots of people) to manipulate the law so they won't have to sleep with one eye open anymore wondering what the next black-magic technology will come up next that might wipe them out of existence. Does anyone else understand what I'm trying to say here?
_________________
-Baby JP "A member since 2001" |
|
|
|
jk2silly
Commander
Joined: Mar 26, 2002
Member#: 30
Posts: 582
Location: Philadelphia Pa USA
|
|
Posted:
Fri May 10, 2002 4:43 am Post subject: Bans |
|
Well this is a tread that has attracted a heated debate. All on the subject of a few banned IP addresses. To allay some of the fears that I have seen in the tread. If you use the default set up of WinAmp you CAN NOT rip anything. You have to download the software (which they have on thier site) before you can even rip a CD that you have yourself. The fears that if you use a dynamic IP address and getting caught out are so remote as to be groundless. your ISP will probably never change the first part of thier IP addresses. They are given a range to work with so unless you are with the same ISP you have nothing to fear.
Our gentle hosts do not WANT to ban anyone. They are complying with the current laws that state that it is illegal to make a copy of music that you do not own. Plain and simple. If that is taped from the radio then that is pirated. ther is no way around that. It is not, however, illegal to play music over the radio if you own the album. the same rules apply to computers but the debate is more fierce being as one copy can make thousands as good as the original without the generational loss that has accompanied tapes in the past.
I am saddened to think that there are some that have been and more still that will cotinue to try. If banning those IP addresses is the only way to do this then so be it. The only thing that I find shocking is not that they do it but that they think it is right and correct to do it.
_________________
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. - Calvin and Hobbes - |
|
|
|
BabyJP-FU-
Ensign
Joined: May 06, 2002
Member#: 84
Posts: 24
Location: West Los Angeles
|
|
Posted:
Fri May 10, 2002 9:11 am Post subject: Bans |
|
I use to record music from radio stations all the time back in HS because I wanted to listen to hiphop mixes from the DJ during the traffic hour jam special here in my neighborhood. ALSO, I still record from TV stations (playoff games, sitcoms, Discovery)... things that I want to watch later incase I don't have the time to see it. I COULD call the radio station and ask for recorded copies of their shows or I can call NBC and ask for that one episode I missed... but who the hell does that?! Like I said before.. the law regarding this matter was influenced by people who want to CRUSH independent radio station. This law needs to be changed.. because it's stupid.. The law needs to be modified so people can pay for subscriptions to record streams for a FAIR PRICE (services out there that have subscriptions are RIPPING you off). Just as CARP is trying to rip off the independent internet radio industry. But people still broadcast anyway. Just as people will record TV's and Radios and Blockbuster VCR's... The honest listeners shouldn't have to be forced to use abide by caveman processes... THE LAW is what needs to be changed.. And if Technology is far ahead of the curve in relations to the law, then I suggest those dumbshit politicians pick up a subscription to PC magazine or CNET and start reading articles... or how knows.. maybe they need to impliment a new political party souly aimed at keeping up with technology for the best interests of the public... because clearly the current major parties with sufficient influence don't have the abilities to do so.
_________________
-Baby JP "A member since 2001" |
|
|
|
T2
Ensign
Joined: Mar 26, 2002
Member#: 31
Posts: 28
Location: Virginia - Some say a state of mind, not me mind you. ;)
|
|
Posted:
Tue May 14, 2002 10:36 pm Post subject: Bans |
|
Sorry... been way ...
Short points
1) FM radio is a lossy format, you don't get perfect copies, and you usually get some announcer in between or at the beginning and ending of a song (again making it less desirable to have a copy of)
2) digitally broadcast music already has a pricing structure or else Sirrus & XM Satellite radio wouldn't exist.
Longer points:
------------------
Look at the costs...
1 person
600 mins per day (10 hrs)
4 mins / per song (say an average)
30 days (avg calendar month)
600 mins / 4 min = 150 songs (@avg 4 mins a song)
150 songs @ carp rate of .0014 = $0.21 (yes USD)
.21 per day X 30 days = $6.30
$6.30 per month, per listener, average!
Now.. equate that to what YOU pay for FM RADIO.. $0.00 (any currency you'd like)
Now look at DIGITAL Radio...
XM Radio = 9.95 month
Sirrus = 12.95 month
What the CARP fee does ... is make an unfair advantage in the "Business Model" that is "Digitally Delivered Music"
XM & Sirrus pay standard royalty rates. Just like FM radio. The "usage per listener" is not tracked, nor are the COSTS of broadcasting their 'streams' changed by the amount of music played or the number of listeners... it is only by the amount of revenue generated...
Example:
@ 9.95 a month
24x7, you could turn on the radio and leave it running 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, whether you or someone else, or NO ONE else is listening, and the fee does not change! But do that with a site like Streaming Soundtracks and....
24hrs = 1440 mins
4 mins per song = 360 songs (avg)
360 songs @ carp rate (.0014) = $0.504 (USD)
30 days @ $0.504 = $15.12
The fee structure imposed by CARP is wrong! BUT, and no disrespect to ANY digital broadcaster, there still must exist SOME form of compensation, as the artist's music IS being played.
My point... standard FM Radio type royalty fees based on station revenue are mostly fair. Not 100% as with the internet, as bandwidth costs a lot more than electricity does for any given radio tower broadcast, but... still more fair than a per user, per listen, fee!
(this as been a rant by your number 2 most hated ranter) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
_________________
-T2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
