Home
AudioAsylum Trader
Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

For Sale Ads

FAQ / News / Events

 

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.

You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login


Login to access features only available to registered Asylum Inmates.
    By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username:

The Name that you picked or by default, your email.
Forgot Moniker?

 
 

Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".

Password:    

Forgot Password?

 Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:  
Your Email:  
Subject:  

Message Comments

   

Original Message

RE: I don't understand how downloading sites can lose money? How many employees do they need?

Posted by PAR on January 24, 2017 at 00:34:19:

Although iI am unaware of the business structure of streaming services I do understand that there are two major costs to them, royalties and the cost of bandwidth. In regard to the latter there was a posting to one of my messages from Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records over on the Music forum from ( I think) early last year.

In regard to royalties they have to pay two parties, the record companies and the music publishers. One difficluty that they may face with the latter could be a royalty on effectively each title held on their servers as the mechanical right is not a performance right. However only a minority of titles produce revenue. I gather that for most (all?) of the streaming services only a comparatively small percentage of the repertoire held by them is ever accessed. However were they to restrict the titles to only those with a good chance of mass popularity then the service would offer an unattractive proposition to subscribers as they would then be something like a a top 100 albums only service.

How any of this specifically affected Classics Online we don't know but clearly something did. Given what ultinately became a limited offering I suspect that it simply did not attract a sufficient number of subscribers to cover the costs.