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

1–10 of 25 posts

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

#4

Post by yason »

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.

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

#6

Post by alain94040 »

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).

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

#7

Post by megaman821 »

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).

This really isn't an apt comparison at all. Music has a pretty limited set of uses than can be enumerated and license fees can be assigned to. This would allow for more competition and innovation in the music space if every new service didn't have to spend years upon years negotiating with the record labels.

It would be even better if television and movies also had compulsory licenses. Maybe not for new releases but after a certain amount of time the value of certain types of videos becomes nearly equal.

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

#9

Post by zipdog »

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.

Although it would complicate matters, I'd prefer the license to be by song or by band or similar. Otherwise they'd either need to track your listening/downloading habits to make payments to artists fair, or else just make the payments on their own metrics (which are always tilted toward the artists most controlled by the labels)
Post reply on HN