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

[Mark Sottilaro <sine@zerocrossing.net>]

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").
>