"Guerite©" wrote:

Propaganda Ejaculate Castrated
snip

How does this affect terrestrial broadcasters who stream?

The principles are exactly the same, but at the individual radio station
level, the dollar amounts are of course are smaller. Clear Channel's total
corporate obligation for November 2006 based on comScore Arbitron ratings
and assuming 13 songs per hour, would be about $500,000... but if that's
for streaming, let's say, 500 stations, it would only be a royalty
obligation of about $1,000 per station per month in 2006. Are those stations
selling enough online spots and website banners and sponsorships to make
that affordable? I'm not sure. (The decision has no impact on news and
talk stations who stream.)

Is this the end of Internet radio?

Although this is undeniably a huge victory for the legal departments of
record labels (or at least for the lawyers at their industry trade
association, the RIAA), I doubt that the heads of the record labels and
their marketing executives actually want to see Internet radio driven out of
business. (This may be a case of "Be careful what you wish for, you may get
it.")

http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/ne...07/index.shtml
__________________________________________________ ________

Is this the end of HD radio?

LOL - Hardly. Maybe the second on air HD-"2" stream will have to be turned
off since the small local radio operator would essentially have to pay
royalties for two radio stations. On the other hand this extra available
bandwidth of a former HD-"2" stream can then be used for full CD like HD
fidelity. Stations broadcasting HD-2 signals don't sound as good as
stations utilizing the full bandwidth on a single "HD-1" stream.

In any case, HD sounds far better than any analog signal. HD radio stations
will abandon analog and redirect the full station power of their amplifiers
towards the HD digital stream.

They'd better get some HD listeners before they do that, elsewise their
listeners will abandon them.