41–50 of 56 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.)
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…
The "limit" on copyright is duration. The market owns price. You haven't answered my question.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.)
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.
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.
I would gladly pay either a subscription or a per song fee to Pandora. At .2 cents per song it would be worth it.
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.
The time is ripe for another market entrant to modernize music distribution.
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.
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.
BMI was invented to license artists to radio stations when ASCAP's fees were too high. ASCAP refused to lower their prices at first, they'd assume that nobody would want to listen to the unproven artists that BMI was signing. Fortunately for BMI and the world, people liked the upstarts just fine. The time is ripe for another market entrant to modernize music distribution.
Musicians go to the major labels because the major labels own the distribution channel and the prestige that goes with it. But ten years from now, that channel is going to be meaningless. What's the business that fixes the RIAA problem?