I think the problem is that there is no distinction made between computer generated playlists (eg: Yoga Radio) and listener initiated streams.
Why not keep the existing royalty structure, but split the royalty pie based on user initiated streams and computer generated streams. If someone buys premium and only listens to Yoga Radio:
30% Spotify
70% Existing Yoga Radio Big Pool Royalty Structure
But if 50% of their listening is actual artists they have chosen (download to phone, click on artist/album or song/shared playlist from someone else/own playlist):
30% Spotify
35% Existing Yoga Radio Big Pool
35% Direct cut determined by per-listener chart
Or if Mom signs up and only listens to her kid:
30% Spotify
0% Yoga Radio
70% Direct cut determined by per-listener chart (all to one with love from Mom)
This not only rewards artists with loyal fanbases, but it also fairly compensates artists who compete in the mass market where people just listen to the radio and don't care.
It makes a lot more sense once you come to realize that these places aren't about promoting and driving social mobility, and rather they exist to sustain existing positions by strengthening and fortifying class divide. (all the while collecting a nice tithe in the process) In essence, they serve the wealthy by keeping the wealthy, wealthy. They earn their keep in terms of donations for the service they provide.
The few token kids who come from the real world who are given a free ride each year are there just to provide window dressing. Most of them indeed seem out of place, and often have looks of dejection on their faces.
I have some personal experience with the Ivy League and I was really unimpressed. Since choosing a school is such a big gamble, especially in an increasingly competitive world, I don't want to make claims as to what people should do... but...
I really do like the strong public university systems on the west coast. They are actually truly diverse places, and while some may be resource lean, I think they tend to lead to a lot more social mobility.
If you ask me, I think we'd be a whole lot better off if these places weren't unconditionally lent the credibility they enjoy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kickstarter is basically Skymall 2.0 with added suspense. Will they actually ship it?! Will it actually work?! Will it actually work well?!
To be totally honest, this looks more like an internal management problem at Google than it does like a real effort coming out of their actual Internet strategy.
First off, the application to ICANN states that the purpose of this is to "... provide Google with greater ability to create a custom portal for employees to manage products and services in development."
That doesn't even make much sense, and honestly sounds like a bunch of corporate gobbledegook written by somebody who reads CIO Magazine.
Second off, this Ben dude is actually the CIO. CIO as in, guy who is in charge of internal IT. Printers, telephones, desktops, laptops, HR systems, financial systems, webpage based paperwork. If there were letters coming out of people on the service side, that would be one thing, but this smells like something embarrassing that snuck out when nobody was looking...
My understanding is that most peer review systems in place at various journals and funding agencies today are already anonymous (except for when people are identified by their well known viewpoints.) If you ask me, the real problem can't be solved with communications technology, the real problem must be solved at the source: The funding agencies need to take the importance of reproduction of results seriously and require their grantees to do a certain amount of rote reproduction work in order to qualify for grants for novel research. Will it slow the pace of things down? Certainly. Will it increase the quality of the science? Certainly.
The last time I visited SF, I saw an awful lot of new construction. Even though I'm aware that it's unquestionably a landlord's market over there these days, there has always been a sizable spread between what modern/new stuff rents for and what the older stock rents for. I'd really have to see a distribution of years since construction/last major remodel, to really believe any data like this. To lump it all together seems naive to me.
Why not keep the existing royalty structure, but split the royalty pie based on user initiated streams and computer generated streams. If someone buys premium and only listens to Yoga Radio:
But if 50% of their listening is actual artists they have chosen (download to phone, click on artist/album or song/shared playlist from someone else/own playlist):
Or if Mom signs up and only listens to her kid:
This not only rewards artists with loyal fanbases, but it also fairly compensates artists who compete in the mass market where people just listen to the radio and don't care.
Best of both worlds, no?