Hi List,

I have been watching this debate for a while and nobody proposes how to stop 
the International broadcasters--the ones from other countries--from 
broadcasting on the Internet for lower rates.  In other countries--where a 
semblance of democracy still exists--I can regularly find Internet 
broadcasters who stream a wide variety of music, talk and other stuff that 
will now be restricted in the United States.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mike" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: the other side of the debate a letter from sound exchange


From Radio and internet newsletter

The letter reads, "We believe when Congress takes a hard look behind this
curtain of misinformation being fostered by SaveNetRadio, their campaign for
BigNetRadio will be fully revealed for what it is: a cash grab by
BigNetRadio."

Citing "facts" to support this portrayal of royalty relief efforts as a
"cash grab," SoundExchange claims, "14 of the 20 largest webcasters, some
who comprise  <http://www.digmedia.org> DiMA and SaveNetRadio, have market
capitalization ranging from one billion to several hundred billion dollars,"
and "The other large webcasters have significant venture capital backing."
Naturally, SoundExchange fails to mention the names of these 14
multi-billion-dollar public companies, or what it considers "significant
venture capital backing"  <http://www.riaa.org>  <http://www.riaa.org/>
<http://www.riaa.org> for the other six operations.

SoundExchange does cite CBS' recent $280 million acquisition of
<http://www.dima.org> Last.fm, and bemoans the fact that "none of (this
money) went to artists or copyright holders" (read: labels). What isn't
explained is why "vendors" would expect to receive a share of proceeds from
the sale of "a customer" (or the fact that artists receive no share of the
enormous sale prices of major label groups as they consolidate).



mike

amature call M0DMD