MOOD: Not sure:
Wow, I think I'm nearly falling off my chair. Things are happening, but I have to admit in a somewhat different form to how I expected them to happen, and my head is spinning. I'm seeing blues, cyans, whites, yellows, oranges, and reds, but hang on, I'm not hallucinating. And I haven't taken drugs, so you can call off the police raid, I don't have LSD in the place.
But tongue and cheek aside, my article has finally appeared in the St George Leader, and just the very fact that it has so, is why I'm very pleased. The only disappointment is that it is giving the impression that I want a free ride, as in wanting all the license fees waved, why that is DEFINITELY NOT TRUE. I wish journalists would get their facts right before publishing.
I've always noted that recording artists need income to live on, and for recording their music. Instruments, recording studios, touring, music publishing, and distribution all cost money, and recording artists need money to do this. I have no problem paying license fees and royalties. This has to work though on a constructive model of percentage of revenue, rather then crazy minimal fees that people with disabilities cannot afford. This also relates to ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority).
I've noted in my submission that with some give and take, that a Class H license can raise just as much, if not more money for both artists and the government. This is if the Class H Broadcaster's station is given the space and flexibility to grow.
If the station is only making $500 a year, it would only need to pay $50. However if the station is generating $500,000 of revenue, then its total fees would be $50,000 annually. Note in both cases the fees are 10%. This is broken down equally between the copyright collection societies and the broadcast authority, which I've detailed more in my submission. For the sake of this blog will keep it simple.
So if we really get successful, and make as much money as a fully blown commercial FM station, which as a rough guess is about $18 million per annum, then the total fees would be $1.8 million.
So as demonstrated with the fee structure above, it's a win win for both the artists and government, and for the person with disabilities. This is whether it is a person on a disability with a few local sponsors, or a person successful enough to have major advertisers.
Admitfully the mix-up in the article has grilled me off, but I'll wait until the morning before writing anything to the papers editors. I don't appreciate being made out that I want a free ride.
But tongue and cheek aside, my article has finally appeared in the St George Leader, and just the very fact that it has so, is why I'm very pleased. The only disappointment is that it is giving the impression that I want a free ride, as in wanting all the license fees waved, why that is DEFINITELY NOT TRUE. I wish journalists would get their facts right before publishing.
I've always noted that recording artists need income to live on, and for recording their music. Instruments, recording studios, touring, music publishing, and distribution all cost money, and recording artists need money to do this. I have no problem paying license fees and royalties. This has to work though on a constructive model of percentage of revenue, rather then crazy minimal fees that people with disabilities cannot afford. This also relates to ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority).
I've noted in my submission that with some give and take, that a Class H license can raise just as much, if not more money for both artists and the government. This is if the Class H Broadcaster's station is given the space and flexibility to grow.
If the station is only making $500 a year, it would only need to pay $50. However if the station is generating $500,000 of revenue, then its total fees would be $50,000 annually. Note in both cases the fees are 10%. This is broken down equally between the copyright collection societies and the broadcast authority, which I've detailed more in my submission. For the sake of this blog will keep it simple.
So if we really get successful, and make as much money as a fully blown commercial FM station, which as a rough guess is about $18 million per annum, then the total fees would be $1.8 million.
So as demonstrated with the fee structure above, it's a win win for both the artists and government, and for the person with disabilities. This is whether it is a person on a disability with a few local sponsors, or a person successful enough to have major advertisers.
Admitfully the mix-up in the article has grilled me off, but I'll wait until the morning before writing anything to the papers editors. I don't appreciate being made out that I want a free ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment