Here are two PDF Files pulled off of this website:
The first one is a press release suggesting that artists are behind this change. It has been suggested that we stop playing music from any artist that publicly supports the new rates, we may follow through on that.
The second one is a lists of Myth's and Fact's by SoundExchange.
My two thoughts on this are that one, I thought a "fact" was something that has evidence to back it up. They actually blame the decline of CD sales on internet radio, when in reality it is widely known throughout the industry that dozens of factors are going into the CD's decline and NO ONE has solid evidence of exactly which factors are causing it or how big their impact is.
Second, I see a "fuzzy math" tactic that is very popular among people in public office and high profile positions.
They use numbers out of context and order to justify (errantly) their position. When the Milwaukee Brewers were still owned by Bud Selig their General Manager was Sal Bando. A heck of a ball player but a train wreck of a public relations person. He consistantly was known for saying the wrong thing.
The team was under fire a lot for not putting any money into payroll. Two years before Miller Park opened they cut payroll substantially, the year before it opened they did it again.
The year Miller Park opened they increased payroll about 20 - 30% and boasted about the investment they made (never pointing out there were simply back to about where they were before they slashed payroll previously).
This is a common type of numbers game people who answer to the public like to play.
The last "Myth/Fact" uses numbers based on the royalty rates originally in effect in 2001, NOT where they are now or will be in four years.
Furthermore the writer then tries to show how since there were 7 years of no increases, it's only an 8% annual increase since 1998. Smooth.
I am so mad right now! I read through everything on that site, and they leave out one major point: No where do they say that the rate is per play per listener, they just say it's per play. That's a major misrepresentation.
Also, they give an example of a listener listing to internet radio 40 hours per month. Even non-forum members likely listen to internet radio at work, which would be 40 hours per week, or 160 hours per month.
They had an article I took just two paragraphs from, the second one covers what we've been tlaking about...
-------------------
Just in the past year, weve seen independent music online continue to explode in popularity (emusic is #2 for online services), Elliot Spitzer has forced the major labels and radio stations to end payola and play independent music, and distribution is more open than ever. Were getting close! Would any of this have been possible if the major corporate labels were still powerful enough to buy off and silence their critics? Never.
Last week I talked to a musician whose band is signed to a major label. They are so far in debt to their label that they never see a cent from CD sales. When the label went through a bunch of layoffs recently, he was psyched the people that control their recording contract have been wasteful, manipulative, controlling, and frankly idiotic. The only successful marketing the band has had in the past year has been done entirely by the band members. With the layoffs theres less corporate red tape to get in their way. Were getting close!
"$500 million pie" doesnt' exist! "In other forums directed to musicians, SoundExchange President John Simson [right] has posted a more detailed statement... [and] that Internet radio revenues have increased in recent years from $50 million to $500 million (implying that these revenues allow webcasters to pay the new royalties).
"That $500 million figure apparently came from a widely quoted report recently released by an analyst at JP Morgan [in RAIN here]. However, that analyst, John Blackledge, last Thursday stated at a Jupiter/Kagan Conference on Radio and Television Values and Finance that the actual revenues from Internet Radio were in the $50 to $100 million dollar range, not the $500 million dollar number that many press reports seized on. That higher number included all sorts of revenue not attributable to the types of digital audio music services subject to the statutory license.