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

Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#31

Post by netcan »

ashu wrote: post #2

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.

>"That makes me really sad"

Id say it makes a lot of people angry. It's also another step in making people reconsider the concept of copyright for music.

I think someone's mentioned it here in the discussion: Copyright protection is not an inalienable right (like the right to remain silent), it's an instrument designed to have some desirable result (like tax deductions). Copyright in this case is preventing innovative products & services, and very probably harmful to the art itself. 'Small' artists & genres have the most to gain from the potential of free music.

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#32

Post by 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.

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#33

Post by mtw »

jamesbritt wrote: post #11
tptacek wrote: post #9

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.

"...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…

Playing devil's advocate:

"... the same effect of refusing a license, which (one could argue) would interfere with the progress of science and useful arts."

So does that mean that Google or Coca-Cola should (must?) license their algorithm/recipe for the progress of science and useful arts?

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#34

Post by rglovejoy »

mtw wrote: post #33
jamesbritt wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...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…

Playing devil's advocate: "... the same effect of refusing a license, which (one could argue) would interfere with the progress of science and useful arts." So does that mean that Google or Coca-Cola should (must?) license their algorithm/recipe for the progress of science and useful arts?

No, because those are not copyrights. They are trade secrets/patents, which are protected by a different set of laws.

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#35

Post by tptacek »

jamesbritt wrote: post #11
tptacek wrote: post #9

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.

"...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…

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

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#36

Post by tptacek »

Tichy wrote: post #29
tptacek wrote: post #9

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.

I wonder if it is not also the artists "fault": they chose to be represented by the music industry. Apparently alternative channels have not yet attracted sufficient talent to create a radio service based on it.

This is basically my thought as well. Pandora is upset because without major-label artists, most of their clientele will vanish. But that's really not our problem, is it? If WMG (or their trade reps) are a bunch of bitches, Pandora should just do business with Matador.

It feels like what Pandora really wants is for their business model to be handed to them on a platter.

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#37

Post by theantidote »

mynameishere wrote: post #12

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...

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!

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#38

Post by sabat »

tptacek wrote: post #9

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.

Besides the fact that there is no provision in the US constitution for treating ideas as property, it's wrong because webcasters are being treated wildly unfairly than other outlets. There is only one reason for this: the RIAA is afraid of them and wants to drive them out of business. That's actually illegal. And wrong.

Re: Pandora: Giant of Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

#39

Post by sabat »

fallentimes wrote: post #14
ashu wrote: post #2

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.

"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 S…

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.)
Post reply on HN