MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Aug 18, 08 - 04:24 pm Comment from: Bob R.

They can't see past their own greed... Why can't they just make the royalty fee's a small percentage of a companies revenues? I mean isn't 10% of something better than 100% of nothing??? Not to mention the obvious effect that Pandora's system (by way of discovering new music) helps them even more in the long run!

NO WAY! I love the Pandora on my iPhone. Guess we should all just download illegal copies of music to make the industry happy.

Aug 18, 08 - 04:33 pm Comment from: minime

Save Pandora!!

Aug 18, 08 - 04:37 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

I bought a lot of music because of Pandora. Too bad the industry doesn't understand this.

Aug 18, 08 - 04:38 pm Comment from: I need a 12 inch MacBook Pro

Nah, I don't need radio on my iPod or the iPhone.

Aug 18, 08 - 04:48 pm Comment from: Predrag

I would like someone to explain to me how is commercial broadcast radio different from online radio, from music labels' perspective? Commercial radio pays no royalties, due to the (ancient) understanding that it provides airplay and thus free promotion for labels' products. Meanwhile, by using that product (for free), commercial radio is able to sell advertising time (inbetween the free product) for big $$ and make profit.

In the online world, web radio does pretty much the same: provides (air)web-play for labels' products, and the web site in turn sells advertising space on its pages.

Why is commercial broadcast radio not paying royalty fees, and web-radio is forced to pay them for exactly the same type of business model? What was the argument of the RIAA lobby here?

I love Pandora. I've discovered quite a few cool bands through it!

Aug 18, 08 - 04:51 pm Comment from: FILMflam

This is actually being pushed by traditional radio stations as the greatest threat to their businesses are internet radio stations. They want those fees as high as possible to drive down competition. Artists are the only ones who can stop this from happening. And it is in their best interest. Just like taxes, the higher the fees, the less it will be used, so they may get twice as much money per play, but they will be getting one-third the number of plays.

In the end, there will be no free internet radio without commercials.

Aug 18, 08 - 04:54 pm Comment from: Demon

The record labels are the only ones that benefit from these fees, Artists see nothing. The sad part is Pandora is forced to pay royalties on Indie Music that the Indie Artist's rarely and most often never sees. Because a large chuck of Pandora's and Last.FM's royalty payments are for indie artists' music the collection society splits the unclaimed indie royalties between the record labels after taking a big chunk of the fees. The record labels want on-line on-demand music providers like Last.FM (now owned by CBS) and Pandora to die or to only use label artists. The use of Indie music is one of the things that ended the fee talks last year with internet radio being stuck with the highest broadcast fees in history.
Pandora will die in 2008 or by the end of 2009 and Last.FM will be around for a while longer as CBS has much deep pockets and can keep it running for awhile, if they don't convert Last.FM to something were they (CBS) controls the copyright on the content and can use it for free or a much lower price on the performance fee.

Aug 18, 08 - 04:54 pm Comment from: Predrag

Obviously, going against insignificant web-radio providers is much easier than going against broadcast networks and large corporations who own terrestrial (analog) radio. This might explain why only web guys are forced to pay, and ordinary broadcast radio was spared. I could see how RIAA might have approached the networks with "You should pay us royalties for using our music!", and they collectively responded "Bite me! See you in Congress!". While RIAA has a lot of lobbying money, networks probably have even more, so RIAA decided to go where they can easily win.

That still doesn't answer my question: How did they bamboozle the lawmakers into accepting the idea that web radio and analogue radio are different?

Aug 18, 08 - 04:58 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

Amazingly, satellite radio pays lower fees than webcasters. There was an excellent podcast on this issue at Gene Steinberg's the Mac Night Owl website last year.

I assume they're toast, so I'll speak in the past tense: Pandora was a class act, and would have grown into bigger and better things if allowed to. They were making great strides in researching the essential elements of music, which is a legacy no terrestrial radio station in history could ever claim. If the music industry had held this kind of power over Apple, we would not have iPods and iPhones today (thank God they did not). I'll miss Pandora.

Aug 18, 08 - 05:05 pm Comment from: Bunsen Honeydew

I just started to enjoy it on my Iphone in the car.
What a shame, a DAMN shame.

I mean, as much as I love to listen to people on the radio that LOVE to listen to themselves speak. . . . . . . . psyche!

Plus commercials and repetitive song playlists are so underrated!

A woman has to pay me a 10% royalty every time she looks at me, because I am so sexy.

Aug 18, 08 - 05:29 pm Comment from: AAPLguy

@ Predrag

Not sure if this has changed, but the radio station I worked for in the 80s paid royalties to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.

Aug 18, 08 - 05:34 pm Comment from: TheConfuzed1

This sucks! I love Pandora, and use it quite often.

If only the damn executives would realize that this is going to cost them money, rather than make them more.

They like to keep traditional radio royalty free because then they get to bride them for the "hits" that play constantly. You don't get to choose like you do with Pandora. The hits get shoved down your ears from who they are trying to market the hell out of.

Why do you think Britney Spears gets played so much??....

Radio is not royalty free, the broadcasters pay annual fees to the performance rights organizations ASCAP and BMI. These organizations then distribute the money to the publishers and songwriters.

Aug 18, 08 - 05:55 pm Comment from: macaholic

My understanding is that royalties on broadcast radio are paid to the composer, not the performer. Satellite radio was forced to pay royalties to composer and performer thru lobbying by the NAB (national association of broadcasters). Along with a nod and a wink from the labels themselves

Won't someone please think of the poor record execs? How ever will they pay for their new Bentley or their hair plugs?

Hello. Why don't you charge me for Pandora? WTF with all this free shit going on around the iPhone? Is everybody 3 years old? Start charging for value. The whiners who don't want to pay for it aren't gonna bail you out when you go belly up.

This company would be a PERFECT acquisition for Apple. They could deploy the feature as an iPod enhancement, and generate more music sales. Users get customizable radio stations, artists & record companies make more money, competitors get one foot deeper. Win-Win-Lose!

Aug 18, 08 - 06:44 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

This is not about anyone making money from these fees. Oh, a few do make some in the short term, but that's not what it's about. This is really about driving the Internet broadcasters out of business. That will then allow other broadcasters, your typical radio broadcasters, to earn a little more money and to possibly grow rather than losing money as they lose market share.
This is a wrong choice. A bad choice. An evil choice. We need to punish those who have made it for us. That said, the artists, songwriters and, yes, music producers, deserve a day's pay for their day's work. Better work, better pay. I don't see any of this money going to any of these "producers", anyone with any input into the production of the music.
My opinion.

Aug 18, 08 - 06:49 pm Comment from: GizmoDan

I'm assuming Pandora could continue as a subscription service. If they pay 70% of their income as royalties, and they have almost no income, the subscription fee might be reasonable, and keep them in business.

I for one would easily pay $5/month to continue listening to Pandora.

Aug 18, 08 - 07:35 pm Comment from: wannabe

GizmoDan, it's just not that simple. There's no way they can support their overhead (like the people who run the servers, and the people who listen to all the songs to determine what musical elements they have, etc) with revenue from the tiny, tiny fraction of people who are willing to pay a subscription fee.

Aug 18, 08 - 08:15 pm Comment from: MacSmiley

Guess the music industry has never heard of the Laffer curve.

This is about killing the indie labels. The big labels can control the big radio stations, but not the proliferation of small web radio, which offers listeners a choice. Choice is not what the big labels want, they want all the zombies to buy millions of copies of the same recording. They have it sewn up now, even if web radio survives, the big labels steal all their money legally regardless of what they play. Download as much as you can, give it to as many as you can. Killl the big labels, then music can thrive again.

Aug 18, 08 - 09:14 pm Comment from: ron

That's what you get for opening the box.

ha! ha! ha!

"...opening the box..."

Pandora's box!!

good one ron!

That sucks

I was an early adopter of Pandora and immediately felt like this would be the perfect fit for iTunes. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to use it for about 1,5 years now since they pulled the plug in Europe. Nevertheless, Pandora is clearly the best thing that happened to music listening (or music habits) since the radio itself.

Radio, Internet stations, cable, etc... The way I see it - those "broadcasts" are advertisement for musicians and actors. True stations can make money from commercials so they can keep broadcasting, but the main idea is to get the stuff in front of you and me so we go out and buy from the record store, iTunes or some other distributor - or see the artist in concert. IT's ADVERTISING for the artists that the record companies DONT pay for!! If anything - The record companies should PAY the broadcasters. Not the other way around.

Aug 19, 08 - 01:42 pm Comment from: maclife

I agree with AP. I too LOVE Pandora. I've been enjoying it for several years.
I'd be willing to pay a small fee to continue enjoying it as Satellite radio does not offer a personalized experience. The thought of an Apple Radio Station is an interesting one for new artist discovery. Steve has tango'd with the industry successfully and won in the past - maybe he and the legal eagles of Cupertino can work their magic with this one if they determine they can grow Apple's bottom line by utilizing this personalized technology.

Purely ridonkulous. Pandora is a fantastic treat that allows us to listen to deep assortments of music...perhaps we need to take a real stand and not let this roll over us-kind of like so many other issues we seem to chalk up to "what can you do about it..."