Talk:Internet Radio Equality Act

message: Needs some bias removed.  Mathiastck 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other options? 

message: 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). 
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)
thread_title:  Pay closer attention, anonymous editor! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I undid the previous corrections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where are you getting those TLH numbers from? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alternative Rates and Terms 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  One rate comparison is plenty 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified