Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

mediamemo.allthingsd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#11

Post by j_baker »

alain94040 wrote: post #6
yason wrote: post #4

I wish there was a 'compulsory licensing' for individuals for personal use. Pay a lump sum and then you're obliged to receive a license for downloading whatever you want from whatever source you like. If the MPAA/RIAA goons log your IP address and send you a notice of copyright infringement, slam the license on their face, and politely ask them to fsck off.

Would you support the same compulsory licensing for the software you write? Are shareware authors bad people? (I'm trying to push this argument to understand why we need to treat music differently).

Music isn't different, but it's treated that way presently. For instance, if I build a website using Windows, .Net, and SQL Server, I don't have to give Microsoft 50% of my revenue. Same with shareware. I don't have to rely on other big companies to negotiate deals with the shareware authors. I just buy the software directly from them.

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#12

Post by j_baker »

anonymous246 wrote: post #8

Content producer makes decent money. Middlemen (aka "Internet companies", HN) freak out. News at 11.

There's a difference between making money and highway robbery. And note that we aren't talking about content producers making money. We're talking about middlemen who serve very little purpose anymore making far more money than they deserve.

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#13

Post by shizcakes »

j_baker wrote: post #11
alain94040 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support the same compulsory licensing for the software you write? Are shareware authors bad people? (I'm trying to push this argument to understand why we need to treat music differently).

Music isn't different, but it's treated that way presently. For instance, if I build a website using Windows, .Net, and SQL Server, I don't have to give Microsoft 50% of my revenue. Same with shareware. I don't have to rely on other big companies to negotiate deals with the shareware authors. I just buy the software directly from them.

This is a poor analogy. Pandora isn't paying music fees once to listen to the songs in their office, they are paying recurring fees because they then redistribute that music to others in a streaming fashion.

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#14

Post by j_baker »

shizcakes wrote: post #13
j_baker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music isn't different, but it's treated that way presently. For instance, if I build a website using Windows, .Net, and SQL Server, I don't have to give Microsoft 50% of my revenue. Same with shareware. I don't have to rely on other big companies to negotiate deals with the shareware authors. I just buy the software directly from them.

This is a poor analogy. Pandora isn't paying music fees once to listen to the songs in their office, they are paying recurring fees because they then redistribute that music to others in a streaming fashion.

That's because I wasn't making an analogy. I'm showing how two similar business transactions (ie, they both involve being able to use content of some kind be it software or music) are artificially made different by laws and "leverage". I mean, there are very few software companies that can place the limitations on their software and charge the same way the music and movie industries do.

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#15

Post by dustingetz »

j_baker wrote: post #12
anonymous246 wrote: post #8

Content producer makes decent money. Middlemen (aka "Internet companies", HN) freak out. News at 11.

There's a difference between making money and highway robbery. And note that we aren't talking about content producers making money. We're talking about middlemen who serve very little purpose anymore making far more money than they deserve.

nobody "deserves" anything.

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#16

Post by patio11 »

yason wrote: post #4

I wish there was a 'compulsory licensing' for individuals for personal use. Pay a lump sum and then you're obliged to receive a license for downloading whatever you want from whatever source you like. If the MPAA/RIAA goons log your IP address and send you a notice of copyright infringement, slam the license on their face, and politely ask them to fsck off.

Supposing we wave a magic wand and eliminate all legal, contractual, technical, and logistical barriers to doing that, how much do you think would be fair for unmatched, untrackable, all-you-can eat access to music?

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#17

Post by j_baker »

dustingetz wrote: post #15
j_baker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between making money and highway robbery. And note that we aren't talking about content producers making money. We're talking about middlemen who serve very little purpose anymore making far more money than they deserve.

nobody "deserves" anything.

I'm sure we could have an interesting philosophical or religious debate over that subject, but it's not really relevant to my point. My point is that record labels take far more out of the system than they put in. That's bad both from a moral standpoint of what people deserve and a pragmatic standpoint of efficiency.

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#18

Post by dustingetz »

j_baker wrote: post #17
dustingetz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nobody "deserves" anything.

I'm sure we could have an interesting philosophical or religious debate over that subject, but it's not really relevant to my point. My point is that record labels take far more out of the system than they put in. That's bad both from a moral standpoint of what people deserve and a pragmatic standpoint of efficiency.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2172809

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#19

Post by Joakal »

yason wrote: post #4

I wish there was a 'compulsory licensing' for individuals for personal use. Pay a lump sum and then you're obliged to receive a license for downloading whatever you want from whatever source you like. If the MPAA/RIAA goons log your IP address and send you a notice of copyright infringement, slam the license on their face, and politely ask them to fsck off.

Compulsory licensing already exists: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Private_copyi...

And these goes to the music groups where if you're a band, you must apply for royalties. I don't think any band got very much at all. 'Government-sanctioned guilds'

Re: Pandora Used to Spend 119% Of Revenue on Royalties

#20

Post by tomjen3 »

patio11 wrote: post #16
yason wrote: post #4

I wish there was a 'compulsory licensing' for individuals for personal use. Pay a lump sum and then you're obliged to receive a license for downloading whatever you want from whatever source you like. If the MPAA/RIAA goons log your IP address and send you a notice of copyright infringement, slam the license on their face, and politely ask them to fsck off.

Supposing we wave a magic wand and eliminate all legal, contractual, technical, and logistical barriers to doing that, how much do you think would be fair for unmatched, untrackable, all-you-can eat access to music?

There is no such thing as fair pricing, the only price is the lowest you can get (if you are the buyer) or the highest you can get (if you are the seller).

Getting a fair price is handing power to your enemy in a zero sum game.

Post reply on HN