Talk:Internet Radio Equality Act

Untitled

Needs some bias removed. Mathiastck 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Shouldn't it be "approximately 160 songs", not "approximately 160 hours"?

Oh dear

It says "0.33 cents per hour", then "33 cents per hour". Which is it?

(Not again ... http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html)

Other options?

While I understand that the retroactive fee alone is enough to wipe out many stations, do those that survive have the option to get their music elsewhere? American music has been so lousy the past 20 years, I can't believe that switching to music from Latin America, India, Poland, China, etc. wouldn't be an improvement anyway. Well, except Chinese opera. 204.186.218.145 02:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another question: will there be any attempt to enforce this royalty from internet radio broadcasters in other countries? It's funny - usually if somebody runs, say, a lead smelter in the U.S. and a whole town has kids with 10 or 15 points off their IQ, the federal agencies decide that they have to save jobs from going overseas, so the fine has to be cut way way down from what the law says it is. But here, a committee makes a decision and all of a sudden companies that were making a profit on paper turn retroactively bankrupt? How is that? 204.186.218.145 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparing apples and oranges? Misleading statistics

DCMara: I'm changing your edits for several reasons. First, when you added your section explaining the fees a station would be charged according to the CRB's decision, you didn't use "average listeners" but instead tried to estimate the number of hours people listen to internet radio (which is completely irrelevant to this article, as it has no bearing on the rates being charged), and you failed to adjust the rate calculated based upon the Act's proposals to match your calculations. The end result was giving the extremely misleading and dishonest impression that somehow the CRB's decision would be LESS EXPENSIVE than the Act's.

Second, you utterly failed to mention that the $.0011/song rate is only TEMPORARY and will within a few years be increased to a whopping $.0019/song.

I don't mind you adding an alternate perspective to the article (which it needed), but next time try doing it in an objective and straight-forward manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.227.153.98 (talk) 16:37:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Pay closer attention, anonymous editor!

I've added back in an example of what the current rate would be given a realistic use of the service. (i.e. the average of 14 hours per week) rather than the (in and of itself) extremely misleading and dishonest impression when using 24 hour a day, 365 days a week, which I'm sure fits the behavior of VERY few, if any.

I also listed the yearly increase in rate at the top of the article. Surprised you missed it.

I also added some more background, giving a brief summary of the proceeding that determined the new rates and terms- the dissatisfaction of which prompted the creation of the IREA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCMara (talk • contribs) 22:22:19, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry you felt that my comments were slanted... I kind of feel that the entire premise of this article is slanted, so I did my best to counteract that. DCMara 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara

Average listeners/hour

Pay more attention, yourself! "Average listeners/hour" is not the same thing as "listeners per station". My point was not to assume 100 people listen to the station 24 hours/day, but that each hour, an average of 100 people (not necessarily the same), are listening to the station. Trying to guesstimate how many hours someone actually listens per week only muddies the waters by complicating the equation.

I did see you referenced the rates per year in the introduction, but I also saw that you calculated your rate based upon 2007's rate (without mentioning that it was only temporary), and you didn't adjust the Act's rate when you decided to do the 14 hours/week thing (hence, "comparing apples to oranges").

I'm removing the 14 hours/week section again, as the statement "The above calculations are made with the assumption that the listener is listening 24 hours a day, for 365 days." is completely false.

Also, please proof-read your edits better. They're filled with grammar errors.

I undid the previous corrections

The only way the dollar amounts make sense is if 100 people are listening 24 hours a day, EVERY day, for the ENTIRE YEAR. That is VERY misleading. I'd love for someone to list more that a dozen examples of stations that average more the 20 people when spread out 24/7/365, let alone 100. The average person only listens 14 hours per week. The rate is entirely based on consumption- the only thing a station is charged for, apart from number of stations, is EXACTLY HOW MUCH EACH LISTENER IS LISTENING, so to not show the realistic impact, and to only show some unlikely theoretical is careless. Don't take my word for it- visit the SoundExchange website yourself, or call somebody there, and ask how much it costs given some scenarios (how may people, how many songs, etc.). They aren't going to lie about it- that's their job, after all, to assist webcasters in figuring out how much they owe.DCMara 02:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara

I'll make a deal with whomever keeps editing this: leave my example up (an example of an actual real world situation) or we can remove any so-called "rate comparisons" and simply say that people disagree as to what the actual fiscal effect will be to webcasters.

And thank you for correcting my grammar errors. I appreciate that, just as anyone would. DCMara 02:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara

Here are your examples

You don't seem to understand how this works. Whether we assume 100 people are listening each hour, or 1 person is listening each hour, it doesn't matter. The point is to provide a USEFUL COMPARISON to illustrate the difference in the rates. And to provide a useful comparison, you don't need to go into "how many hours an average listener listens to internet radio". You need to say "let's assume X number of people listen each hour. How much does the rate differ between the two groups?". Do you understand?

You seem to feel that 100 listeners/hour is outrageous. So, here are a dozen stations from Live365 alone that have a minimum of 204 listeners/hour. Visit the links, and you'll see the TLH rating (total listening hours) for this month. Divide it by 24 (24 hours/day) and divide that by 22 (today is the 22nd day of August). The number you get will be the average listeners for that station per hour for this entire month. Here's the list for you:

http://www.live365.com/stations/pianoradio TLH: 497510; Average listeners/hour: 942
http://www.live365.com/stations/kkjz1 TLH: 310378; Average listeners/hour: 587
http://www.live365.com/stations/wava2 TLH: 238707; Average listeners/hour: 452
http://www.live365.com/stations/zebby TLH: 180049; Average listeners/hour: 341
http://www.live365.com/stations/wumb919fast TLH: 162249; Average listeners/hour: 307
http://www.live365.com/stations/the_loud_guy TLH: 161738; Average listeners/hour: 306
http://www.live365.com/stations/allaboutcountry TLH: 155566; Average listeners/hour: 294
http://www.live365.com/stations/rocklandusa TLH: 154412; Average listeners/hour: 292
http://www.live365.com/stations/blackgospelradio TLH: 138010; Average listeners/hour: 261
http://www.live365.com/stations/trunksu97 TLH: 128851; Average listeners/hour: 244
http://www.live365.com/stations/wamu3 TLH: 127718; Average listeners/hour: 241
http://www.live365.com/stations/lschuck000 TLH: 107825; Average listeners/hour: 204

Now, I'm deleting once again your section about the 14 hours/week, because it is IRRELEVANT TO ANY CALCULATIONS. Also, for the second time, the statement that my calculations assume each listener is listening 24 hours/day is FALSE. Quit putting it back in. My calculations DO NOT ASSUME THAT EVERY LISTENER IS LISTENING 24 HOURS/DAY and it is NOT MISLEADING IN ANY WAY to say "let's assume 100 people listen each hour". That's how calculations and comparisons work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.165.145 (talk) 20:43, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

If you still object to this comparison, even though I just demonstrated that is is, in fact, a "real-world situation", I would be willing to compromise and simply list a percentage-increase of the rates webcasters have to pay. Then we don't have to agree to a theoretical "listeners/hour", but it will still get the point across that the rates are dramatically different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.165.145 (talk) 20:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting those TLH numbers from?

When I visit those websites, all I see next to the TLH are some stickpeople figures. No numbers whatsoever.DCMara 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara

Alternative Rates and Terms

I've added the new cap on the minimum fee and the small webcaster offer. These developments deal with some of the issues that the IREA is trying to address. DCMara 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara

Cleanup needed

There is some cleanup needed at Support and Controversy section. Part of it is rather an frustrated piece of opinion or a forum posting than encyclopedic text. Tarmo Tanilsoo 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup done. This was article before my edits. Tarmo Tanilsoo 07:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One rate comparison is plenty

DCMara: I don't know who else was doing the edits, but they were right to delete the second rate comparison. I'm signed in, and I'm asking you: Stop re-adding the second rate comparison.

The second rate comparison is confusing, and it deserves to be deleted. I just discovered this page today, and I found the section confusing. We don't need to decide the average listening time of any given audience member, and 100 listeners at any given time is a reasonable guess for a successful internet radio station.

If you did the math properly, the ratios (IREA v. 2006 CRB v. 2010 CRB) should all be the same. One person listening for one hour costs a given fraction of a cent. If the anonymous editor thought the calculations should be based on a billion listener-hours per year, the comparison would still look basically the same.

Multiply ANY number times the per listener hour charge -- .33 cents, (.08 x 15) cents, or (.19 x 15) cents -- and the IREA would still leave webcasters paying [.33/(.08 x 15)] times the 2006 CRB rate and [.33/(.19 x 15)] times the 2010 CRB rate.

You've been outvoted; please accept the decision of the wiki.

Comment added by Deejaytalk (talk • contribs) 1:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet Radio Equality Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092602/http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/08/22/soundexchange-offers-discounted-music-royalties-to-small-webcasters to http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/08/22/soundexchange-offers-discounted-music-royalties-to-small-webcasters

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)