
Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand' - nickb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503367.html
======
tptacek
I remain confused by why people believe that "the community" should be able to
set price caps on artwork owned by corporations. If Warner Music wants to
charge $5 a play for Mylie Cyrus, I'm certainly not going to pay it, but how
is it "wrong"?

I'm surprised and happy that Pandora and Last.fm can exist at all, but I don't
understand what _entitles_ them to exist. We don't have a "right" to consume
major label music.

~~~
jamesbritt
"...should be able to set price caps on artwork owned by corporations"

Because copyright protection is not a right, but a limited privilege granted
by the United States Constitution and intended to "promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts", not to make a sure $ for some corporation.

Hence the idea of compulsory licensing, for example. If the cost of the
license, though, is prohibitive, it has the same effect of refusing a license,
which (one could argue) would interfere with the progress of science and
useful arts.

~~~
tptacek
The "limit" on copyright is duration. The market owns price. You haven't
answered my question.

~~~
mrkurt
That's one of the limits, yeah. You also get things like "fair use". You're
correct that price is not currently a restriction in every case, but there's a
good case to be made for compulsory licensing (which is partially a price
limit).

Copyright law creates artificial monopolies. Market based pricing breaks down
in the face of a monopoly. Given that we're dealing with state enabled
monopolies, it seems reasonable that we should clamor for changes to the
framework they operate under.

------
ashu
That makes me _really really_ sad :( Pandora is one of the rare services which
just scream quality. The service itself is great, the web interface is slick,
the ads are slick, the iPhone app is amazing.

~~~
fallentimes
"Our artists and copyright owners deserve to be fairly compensated for the
blood and sweat that forms the core product of these businesses," said Mike
Huppe, general counsel for SoundExchange."

Keeping in mind that traditional radio does not pay any fees for playing
music, Mike Huppe is in for a treat if Pandora is shut down. Tons of
infuriated, tech savvy users will have his name and an axe to grind. I don't
think SoundExchange aka the _RIAA_ (nice try Suit factory) fully understands
what they're getting in to.

Also related: This is not about the artists; the majority of those fees go to
the labels - not the talent. Besides what does Mike Huppe know about blood and
sweat? He shuffles papers around all day.

<http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1570397_1?noconfirm=1>

Edit: I've been reading traditional radio still pays fees. Regardless, they
are a fraction of what Pandora may have to pay.

~~~
sabat
Not sure what you read, but traditional radio does not pay fees to the record
industry. Zero. They do pay ASCAP/BMI fees, however. Those are just for the
performance, and the artists actually do tend to get the money from that.
(That's as opposed to the money the RIAA gets from CD sales, etc., which the
artists almost never see.)

~~~
indiejade
Conversely, radio stations are often _paid_ by major labels to repeatedly
play/promote certain artists. If you've ever listened to a "popular" music
station and wondered why certain songs seem to get played again and again --
sometimes as much as every hour -- that's why. There's actually some kind of
psychology thing involved; the more times a person hears a song, the more
likely that person is to end up liking it.

This whole thing reeks because it's basically the RIAA and major labels
getting into a big huff because they are losing control over the outlets that
they used to control.

~~~
madhatter3
What you are describing is called Payola and it's illegal.

~~~
sabat
It's certainly illegal, but it goes on all the time. Sometimes they get
caught.

------
Eliezer
If you shut down, be sure to open-source the code so that it can be
parallelized into a distributed Pandora that helps take down the RIAA forever.

------
mynameishere
_Traditional radio pays nothing in performance royalties_

??? Like hell they don't.

<http://www.bmi.com/career/entry/C1519>

By the way, BMI employs a regular gestapo who go around hitting venues of all
sizes for licenses. I'm being facetious, but it does suck when a little
coffeeshop has to stop having open mic night because of it...

~~~
theantidote
You aren't being that facetious. My father was a restaurant manager in the 70s
and he had to catalogue every record he had, how many times each song was
played, and then cut a check to the appropriate record companies to avoid
getting sued by them. This wasn't a chain restaurant or anything either, just
a small little one. They are really assholes about playing your own music,
luckily you are allowed to play internet, terrestrial, and satellite radio for
free (they have yet to impose a fee on that I guess) and Pandora counts as
internet radio so it makes a great solution for businesses.

Actually now that I think of it, Pandora should offer a business or premium
plan. Because businesses have to display the name of the song/artist playing
when they play the radio, Pandora should offer a simple, ad-free song title
display that businesses can use when playing their songs. There's some
revenue! Yay! Stay in existence please!

------
culley
Among other things Pandora is good at is getting good PR when needed to help
in it's Washington Lobbying.

This is at least the second time they've threatened to pull the plug to get
positive legislation passed.

I agree they are a great service. It's nice to see even small tech companies
take the fight to Washington (instead of ignoring them ala Intel, Microsoft
and Google)

~~~
stcredzero
I know for a fact that Microsoft does quite a bit of lobbying. I would be
surprised if Intel and Google weren't also in that game.

------
gigawatt
I can't for the life of me understand why SoundExchange thinks that charging
exorbitant rates that force all web streaming music sites out of business will
help its artists make more money. 8/100 of a cent x millions of songs played
is infinitely better than 19/100 of a cent x ZERO songs played. Are they
stupid or stubborn?

~~~
netcan
I think it comes back to not really wanting the internet to happen. And not
necessarily irrationally.

The recording industry world has been in a pretty sweat spot. The current (&
past) world creates a substantial income built on 1. selling albums, 2. strict
adherance to a 90/10 rule (revenue/artists), 3. Periphery industries that
support 1 & 2 (eg: movie soundtracks, radio).

Almost any step is a step away from that cushy world. So any slowing of change
is good.

~~~
stcredzero
sweet spot

------
adrianwaj
They should do an independent artists and non-RIAA version. Now that they have
people's musical taste profiles and an established user base, the next step is
to profile many more said tracks.

~~~
tweety
They totally should, BUT it seems SoundExchange STILL gets the money through
something like lobbied-through by RIAA legislation of compulsory licensing
even for non-label music (now that I'd call borderline criminal)
[http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/04/30/riaa-...](http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/04/30/riaa-
stamps-hard-on-independent-radio-stations)
[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870/429/32706...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870/429/327063)

~~~
adrianwaj
Sounds like SoundExchange are not only passing-off but should be subject to
anti-trust laws.

Other solution: Pandora opens-source its software and open-content its
listener profiles to allow overseas based clones, and then find a different
business model.

Can MusicBrainz start sound-profiling tracks?

------
tweety
Although I can't access Pandora anymore (wrong continent!) it sucks to see how
the greedy bastards are managing to squeeze out of existence yet another
genuinely innovative service. I'm also afraid of the other US-based indie web
radios going under, sort of bizarre as they're NOT even playing any major
label content, yet the same deals through SoundExchange / Copyright board
apply :-o

Though keep in mind, US != world, and webcasters elsewhere can have fairer
licensing deals so perhaps this will give a chance for innovation to flourish
elsewhere (damn well hope so!)

------
kenver
It seems that all the parties involved have something to lose and nothing to
gain by Pandora shutting down.

Surely it's in everyones interest to keep it going. If the royalties gained
aren't as much right now does it really matter? Surely getting _something_ is
better than nothing at all.

Pandora is arguably the best known service and keeping it going might offer
further opportunities for everyone in the long term.

~~~
sabat
The RIAA wants them gone. Period. They think they'll "win" when that happens.

------
cstejerean
I would gladly pay either a subscription or a per song fee to Pandora. At .2
cents per song it would be worth it.

~~~
timr
...and you've just made the comment that makes me _highly_ doubt that this is
anything but a PR coup for the company, in their efforts to lobby the
bureaucrats.

With millions of active users, I don't think Pandora would just fold up their
tent and go home. Like the story says, there are lots of potential ways to
monetize the service.

------
fallentimes
Please no. The Pandora founder has been through so much and I love their
service.

------
mediageek
Its sad to hear this news. I guess the music industry is not acknowledging the
fact that pandora is infact helping them make money.

------
mattmaroon
Seems silly to not just cut out the free service and start actually charging
people.

