111–120 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per the article, FM radio pays royalties to the songwriter but not the performers.
Its reverse. Record industry pays to have their songs played on the air there's even term for it, payola.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguing that high royalties make it hard for Pandora to do business is just bullying and threatening. Obviously if sharing songs via violating copyright weren't an option, listeners would happily pay a little more for Pandora premium or endure a few more commercials. Instead, the public starts from the stance that music should basically be free, and artists are lucky to be paid anything at all. The purpose of statuto…
Did any musicians ever make a living off radio?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguing that high royalties make it hard for Pandora to do business is just bullying and threatening. Obviously if sharing songs via violating copyright weren't an option, listeners would happily pay a little more for Pandora premium or endure a few more commercials. Instead, the public starts from the stance that music should basically be free, and artists are lucky to be paid anything at all. The purpose of statuto…
They make more from Pandora than they ever did from radio... and their music accesses a larger audience.
Its easy to complain about the low pandora royalties, but these artists are essentially trying to kill the golden goose. Pandora currently spends > 50% of revenue on royalties. Any increases would almost certainly lead to the end of the company. $0 is a lot less than $1,300 for 1 million plays.
Arguing that high royalties make it hard for Pandora to do business is just bullying and threatening. Obviously if sharing songs via violating copyright weren't an option, listeners would happily pay a little more for Pandora premium or endure a few more commercials. Instead, the public starts from the stance that music should basically be free, and artists are lucky to be paid anything at all. The purpose of statuto…
"Pandora advertised my product to 1 Million people and only paid me $1300 for it!"
What I think is missing from this whole discussion is the ability to make a living. Sure the industry is opaque to outsiders, and some of the established practices are weird (radio paying only songwriters, not performers), and now it's all being disrupted. But forget about the numbers for one song. Let's say a guy like the OP of the other article works full time as a singer song-writer. He writes a few songs, perform…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguing that high royalties make it hard for Pandora to do business is just bullying and threatening. Oh? If Pandora already spends half its revenues on the music, how is observing that doubling (for example) royalties would cause music costs to eclipse revenues, bullying and threatening? It sounds like Pandora is the one that should feel threatened.
Oh, but isn't that just a failure of their business model? If I can only survive by offering cakes for $5 and buying them for $1 the "threat" would be wholly self inflicted (At least, that is the song which is sung on HN to artists, the "too bad your business model sucks")
Wait, no, it wouldn't be wonderful, because then you'd be angry that every company was making 50% net profit off you left and right.
"Pandora advertised my product to 1 Million people and only paid me $1300 for it!"
"Pandora advertised my product to 1 Million people and only paid me $1300 for it!"
Pandora didn't advertise the product. They delivered the product. The product is the MUSIC YOU ARE LISTENING TO. The experience of listening to music. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't even participate in the conversation.
"If you don't understand that, you shouldn't even participate in the conversation."
This is childish. "If I can't conceive of any other perspective, then you shouldn't open your mouth!!!!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try to make the distributor pay you disproportionate to what consumers are willing to pay for your product(music) is fucking ridiculous.
Disproportionate would be more than 100%. As you said: the consumers are willing to pay a certain amount. A share of that amount can never be "disproportionate". Are you demanding the same humbleness of yourself when you negotiate your salary?