61–70 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably an oversight. I usually surf on 30+ mbps connections, so if I were testing a site I wouldn't notice it.
It's a bit different when your job is to make a website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those of us not used to reading something like this, can you explain? Is the RIAA somewhere in here: "Selling/General/Admin. Expenses, Total"?
I downloaded their detailed income statements[0]. The Google Finance income statement appears to be wrong. Google's income statements imply royalties of less than 8.5%. In their latest quarter (Q2 FY2013) "Cost of Revenue" made up $68,036,000 on revenue of $101,267,000. Of that, "Content acquisition costs" were $60,522. That means royalties make up a whopping 60% of all revenue. They're not making a profit and have l…
Is that surprising? I'd imagine inventory makes up more than that of Amazon's revenue. Both are in the business of selling stuff made by other people. They help you find what you want, sure, but they're distributors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, that's not very accurate. Those performance royalties are paid to SoundExchange, a non-profit assigned to distribute the royalties to the artists. The whole reason the labels hate Pandora is because it's the only massive service paying hundreds of millions of dollars directly to the performers, without filtering it through the labels' accounting departments.
That's correct, Pandora pays SoundExchange the statutory Interactive Streaming rate for the sound recording rights. SoundExchange in turn pays the appropriate rights holder. This might be an artist, directly, but often it's a record label. The labels don't like the revenue flowing through SoundExhange because the process is transparent to their artists. Which means they can't hide the money. Pandora also pays the pub…
I use Pandora and love the product. But every time I see this commercial with Tim Westergren where he states that the royalty system for internet radio is "deeply unfair" I can't help but wonder why he believes that to be true. Where is it written that all distributors should pay the same price for their wares? Wal-Mart pays Proctor and Gamble a significantly lower cost than small grocers. Why? Because Wal-Mart, quit…
The difference is that your example is in a free market and music royalty rates are controlled by Congress.
Nothing stops Pandora from negotiating regular licenses with content producers. Pandora doesn't do it because they'd get a worse deal that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct, Pandora pays SoundExchange the statutory Interactive Streaming rate for the sound recording rights. SoundExchange in turn pays the appropriate rights holder. This might be an artist, directly, but often it's a record label. The labels don't like the revenue flowing through SoundExhange because the process is transparent to their artists. Which means they can't hide the money. Pandora also pays the pub…
Does Pandora have to pay mechanical rights to Harry Fox Agency? I thought that only applied to downloads (non-streaming).
Check out TuneCore's Music Industry Survival Guide. It's a useful resource.
http://www.tunecore.com/guides/sixrights
Edit: I'm wrong (and so is Tunecore). Parent is partially correct, Pandora does not pay for mechanical rights. They qualify as a PurePlay Webcaster. However, Interactive Streaming services, such as Spotify, do have to pay mechanicals in addition to recording and performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct, Pandora pays SoundExchange the statutory Interactive Streaming rate for the sound recording rights. SoundExchange in turn pays the appropriate rights holder. This might be an artist, directly, but often it's a record label. The labels don't like the revenue flowing through SoundExhange because the process is transparent to their artists. Which means they can't hide the money. Pandora also pays the pub…
Technically it's non-interactive streaming, hence no on demand play, restrictions on how many times an artist is played and the skipping restrictions.
Pandora: Is there a reason the image on this blog post is so large? This one image, resized in the browser to 300x200, is consuming 2+ MB. Namely, this one: I've been noticing the resurgence of browser-based resizing of large images on a few different business blogs/formats, recently. In this case (and some others), the resize is to much less than 1/4 the original, so I'm thinking it's not a "Retina" thing. Maybe it'…
This happens all the time, all over the web. It's because interns or non-webdev staff often don't know they should resize a file before uploading it and attaching it to a post. So they'll upload a JPG right from a camera's memory card and use the WYSIWYG editor to set its dimensions. The worst are when images like this are referenced within broadcast e-mail messages. Luckily you can swap the file out on disk without…
That's a job for a computer, not a human. It's a waste of an editor's time to dwell on such details, just as it's a waste of a newspaper editor's time to worry about the ink in the printing machines.
Pandora: Is there a reason the image on this blog post is so large? This one image, resized in the browser to 300x200, is consuming 2+ MB. Namely, this one: I've been noticing the resurgence of browser-based resizing of large images on a few different business blogs/formats, recently. In this case (and some others), the resize is to much less than 1/4 the original, so I'm thinking it's not a "Retina" thing. Maybe it'…
Pandora: Is there a reason the image on this blog post is so large? This one image, resized in the browser to 300x200, is consuming 2+ MB. Namely, this one: I've been noticing the resurgence of browser-based resizing of large images on a few different business blogs/formats, recently. In this case (and some others), the resize is to much less than 1/4 the original, so I'm thinking it's not a "Retina" thing. Maybe it'…
There might be an overall QA problem here: anyone else noticed vocational spelled with an extra a?