Legacy Recording Industry Claims Pandora Is Playing A 'Sick Joke' In Seeking The Same Rates Others Pay

from the really-now? dept

Fri, Jun 14th 2013 9:17am — Mike Masnick

The ability of the record labels and RIAA front groups to flat out lie about the internet is really quite incredible. There's been some buzz recently about the crazy fact that Pandora just bought a small terrestrial radio station in South Dakota. Now, you might wonder, why would an innovative company that basically seems to be focused on making terrestrial radio stations obsolete need to own such a station... and Pandora is rather upfront in its answer: because the music collections societies, like ASCAP and BMI discriminate against internet companies, in direct violation of an antitrust agreement that ASCAP signed. Furthermore, ASCAP not only won't offer Pandora the same rights, but it engaged in highly questionable negotiation practices, such as refusing to tell Pandora what songs it was pulling the rights to, such that Pandora risked huge statutory awards for copyright infringement:

During negotiations, ASCAP and the publisher increased the pressure by refusing to provide Pandora the list of tracks that were being withdrawn, exposing Pandora to copyright infringement liability of up to $150,000 per work. At Pandora’s scale, such liability would be enormous. Faced with such potential liability, Pandora negotiated an agreement that resulted in increased rates. Shortly thereafter, additional major publishers took steps to withdraw their catalogs from ASCAP, again with respect to Pandora.

ASCAP created additional ways to circumvent its antitrust consent decree. Our motion also describes how ASCAP refused to provide Pandora a license under the same terms as the iHeartRadio service, for only one reason: iHeartRadio is owned by a terrestrial broadcaster.

All of this is in direct violation of the antitrust agreement ASCAP has with the DOJ, in which it's supposed to make sure that ASCAP can't use its monopoly power over compositions to discriminate against certain players. Yet, ASCAP is clearly trying to discriminate against internet streaming services, by charging them significantly higher rates.

So, Pandora has bought the station in order to get the same rates as other streaming radio stations that are owned by terrestrial stations. As Public Knowledge points out:

This is a perfect example of the twisted incentives and strange results we get from a music licensing system that is based on who wants a license instead of just what they want to do with the music they’re using. This makes no sense. The law should treat like uses alike. Regardless of how high or low you think performance royalty rates for webcasting should ultimately be, there is no logical reason to give preferential rates to certain companies just because they arrived at the negotiation table first.

And this is only about composition rates, not even getting into the rates that Pandora has to pay for sound recordings, which is infinitely higher than terrestrial radio. Buying the radio station won't help on that front, because the internet streams are charged differently than terrestrial radio no matter who owns it, but just the fact that it's paying different rates than everyone else seems ridiculous.

And, of course, the incumbents try to twist all of this. First up, we see that BMI has sued Pandora for buying the radio station. I'm not joking. I can't see on what possible grounds a lawsuit would make sense. Are they saying it's illegal for a company to seek to get the same rates that BMI offers radio stations?

But, even worse than that is the reaction of the RIAA front group, MusicFirst, a lobbying group set up by the RIAA and SoundExchange solely for the purpose of lobbying against internet companies and seeking ever higher rates for those companies, to make sure no internet music company can stay in business. That this is short-sighted and stupid never seems to occur to MusicFirst, who is always quick with a blog post arguing that internet companies are up to no good. In this case, it accuses Pandora of playing a "sick joke" in making this purchase:

This has to be some kind of sick joke. Pandora bought an FM radio station to game the system in order to pay songwriters less?

Pandora continues to find new ways to give artists and songwriters a raw deal from the bottom of the deck. In their race to the bottom to see how little they can pay music creators, they have stooped to misleading legislation, bait and switch petitions, and now fronting as an FM radio station.

Oh really now? It's a "sick joke" to try to get the same license rate that ASCAP and BMI offer terrestrial radio stations? How so? It's a "sick joke" that the company doesn't think it's fair for ASCAP and BMI to discriminate against internet streaming radio services? The only "sick joke" is MusicFirst pretending to represent artists as it seeks to kill off new and innovative internet services that are helping artists build bigger fan bases. No wonder the RIAA-funded MusicFirst has to resort to silly claims like this. The RIAA has never wanted to adapt to an internet world, and is, once again, looking to spread completely bogus propaganda in an attempt to stifle internet progress, which tends to help independent artists, such that they don't need the RIAA labels any more. What's incredible is that the RIAA, which set up MusicFirst, has it pretend to represent the interests of "artists" when it's never been anything more than a big-label front group. If there's any "sick joke" it would be MusicFirst's pretend concern for artist's rights, that just so happen to align entirely with the interests of the big labels.

Meanwhile, David Israelite, the lobbyist for the music publishers has piled on as well, claiming that this is about Pandora "going to war with songwriters."

David Israelite, CEO of the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), tonight interrupted his state-of-the-industry speech at the group's annual meeting in Manhattan to lash out at Pandora's decision to acquire a radio station in South Dakota. "Pandora is going to pursue lawsuits and gimmicks," Israelite told the hundreds of songwriters and composers in attendance. "Pandora is hoping to fraudulently sneak in the back door. Any shred of credibility that Pandora had is gone. They are at war with songwriters "

Once again... huh? Asking for the same rates that radio pays to stream music online is "going to war"? How does that compute? It's as if the music publishers, collection societies and the RIAA can't help but lie because they have such distaste for Pandora actually figuring out a service that people like online, when they've spent so many years trying to ensure that online services fail. If there's any "war" going on here, it's the legacy recording industry against online services that fans seem to love.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: discrimination, licensing, lobbyists, music publishers, radio, recording industry, royalties, streaming
Companies: ascap, bmi, musicfirst, nmpa, pandora, riaa

77 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 8:31am

So then...
Given how much they are protesting that Pandora is trying to 'take money away from the artists', I'm sure they would have no problem whatsoever with an audit from an independent third party, to see how much exactly they pay the artists from all those licenses, and in particular to see if the increase in license rates was matched by an identical increase in royalty rates paid out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: So then...
  Only if it's a third party that they get to choose. After all, that's consistent with dispute resolution mediation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re: So then...
    Not familiar with the process, but seems to me that would present a pretty hefty conflict of interest there, as odds are they'd choose a company/group they've worked with before, and one which would be inclined to find in their favor, so as to get repeat business in the future.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 7:28pm
    
    Re: Re: So then...
    So if Pandora buys a radio station and they simulcast ONE broadcast so what? If they do the same thing the radio stations do they should get the same rates. But if they do something different... I dunno, say allow user defined algorithmically generated personal playlists per user... well, then, that's a different service and requires a different rate. Pretty simple really.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: So then...
      So if Pandora buys a radio station and they simulcast ONE broadcast so what? If they do the same thing the radio stations do they should get the same rates. But if they do something different... I dunno, say allow user defined algorithmically generated personal playlists per user... well, then, that's a different service and requires a different rate. Pretty simple really.
      
      No, they're asking for the same rates that ASCAP gives iHeartRadio for *ITS* algorithmically generated personal playlists.
      
      It amazes me how you folks keep spewing off about this without even knowing what you're talking about.
      
      They're not asking for the same rates that *radio* pays. They're asking for the same rates that radio stations pay FOR THEIR ONLINE STREAMING SERVICES THAT ARE JUST LIKE PANDORA.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2013 @ 5:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So then...
        So Mike, why doesn't Pandora take its business to China and stream from there? Chinese don't care about copyright, they care about money and for a bit of cumshaw they will send any RIAA official to the black market organ banks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: So then...
  That would open up the Pandora's box...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cixelsid (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:22am

How does that computer
is my new favourite saying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigKeithO, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:53am
  
  Re: How does that computer
  I also enjoyed it immensely.
  
  How does that computer?!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:27am

All of this is in direct violation of the antitrust agreement ASCAP has with the DOJ, in which it's supposed to make sure that ASCAP can't use its monopoly power over compositions to discriminate against certain players. Yet, ASCAP is clearly trying to discriminate against internet streaming services, by charging them significantly higher rates.

Isn't it true that the agreement applies only to treatment of similarly situated players? Like all terrestrial radio stations. I don't think there's anything in the agreement that requires them to treat internet, satellite and broadcast identically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:32am
  
  Re:
  Let's try something novel today: try reading the sources.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  Isn't it true that the agreement applies only to treatment of similarly situated players? Like all terrestrial radio stations. I don't think there's anything in the agreement that requires them to treat internet, satellite and broadcast identically.
  
  Mike doesn't care about the truth, and he won't discuss the merits. Sorry, honest person. You're on the wrong site for that sort of thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Given the dramatic changes in the music industry over the past half century, the Department and ASCAP concluded these changes are necessary to improve competition in music licensing. Specifically, the modifications would:
    
    * expand and clarify ASCAP's obligation to offer certain types of music users, including background music providers and Internet companies, a genuine alternative to a blanket license;
    
    http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2000/6404.htm
    
    Thank you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ruben, 14 Jun 2013 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What, specifically, are the "merits" here? Please, inform us, o great one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2013 @ 12:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You won't ever get an answer. He's just full of lies, and loves to try derailing the conversation with his butt hurt.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:34am

I've said this before and I'll say it again:

- Fry the rules: get burned;
- By the rules: get burned anyway;

The only winning move is not to play, it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  Which is exactly what they want.
  
  The true solution is to find a way to beat them at their own game. Like Pandora are doing now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    All the little guys and upstarts can go suck it. And yes, Pandora's still a little guy.
    
    The only people they want playing the game is a handful of big companies with wads of cash to throw around. They only want a couple of partners to negotiate with - just enough to keep the anti-trust people away. Apple, Clear Channel, Walmart - companies they know will give them juicy deals because they can afford to.
    
    If you can't make them a better offer than Apple, they don't want you in the business. They want their money, and they want it now, because making that big deal now is how they get promoted or get early retirement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  The only winning move is not to play, it seems.
  How... About... A... Nice...Game.. Of... Chess...?
  
  Sorry, couldn't resist
  /Wargames
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:39am

Wait a minuet? You mean to tell me I can take my shitty twenty dollar movie and let it get pirated at which point each copy becomes worth a few billion dollars?

My god! I'm going to be rich!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:42am

if there exists an antitrust agreement between ASCAP and the DoJ, why is there nothing legal happening to ensure it is enforced? i would have thought that would have been a better option than keep posturing around trying to get Dotcom stitched up using all the lies and bullshit they have so far. but then i remembered that Dotcom hasn't bribed anyone there and isn't a member of the USA entertainment industries!! silly me!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:46am
  
  Re:
  The check didn't bounce?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:46am
  
  Re:
  "if there exists an antitrust agreement between ASCAP and the DoJ, why is there nothing legal happening to ensure it is enforced?"
  
  Yeah. Can you imagine what would happen if the same thing happened to legislation? You could end up with a situation where a party could issue tons upon tons of false DMCA take-down requests and not be punished like the law requires...uh...
  
  ...never mind...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Cline (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:47am

During negotiations, ASCAP and the publisher increased the pressure by refusing to provide Pandora the list of tracks that were being withdrawn, exposing Pandora to copyright infringement liability of up to $150,000 per work. At Pandora�s scale, such liability would be enormous.
The way I'm reading that is that Pandora is asking "Would doing X be infringing", and the response was "if it is infringing, we'll tell you after you do it". But I'm pretty sure that can't be right, so what does the above quote actually mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dante866 (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: Matthew Cline's Post
  Basically, ASCAP and the publisher had decided that a list of X songs were no longer going to be offered for Pandora to use. When asked what those songs were, so that Pandora could remove them and prevent people form listening to non-licensed tracks, ASCAP and the publisher refused to share that info.
  
  This would have meant that Pandora would be liable as the distributor for non-licensed, copyrighted material, and liable for the "up to $150,000.00" fine per infringing copy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:10am
    
    Re: Re: Matthew Cline's Post
    Lies. That's all that is. What a joke.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2013 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Matthew Cline's Post
      Lies, how? Oh, right. You don't actually read the articles. Gotcha.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Matthew Cline's Post
    This would have meant that Pandora would be liable as the distributor for non-licensed, copyrighted material, and liable for the "up to $150,000.00" fine per infringing copy.
    But surely - under their twisted doctrines - not supplying that information would amount to contributory infringement (if anyone else did it of course)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Matthew Cline's Post
      But they own the rights. You can't infringe on a copyright you own.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dirkmaster (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Matthew Cline's Post
        Shouldn't they be able to assume that they have a license up until they are notified that they no longer do, since initially they did? I mean, with a contract, you have to be notified (usually at least 30 days in advance) that you are terminating the agreement. Wouldn't this license work the same way?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  Nope, you're reading it right, they were indeed refusing to tell Pandora what songs would be legal for them to air, meaning Pandora would have to treat all of them as infringing lest they get sued, an impossible situation.
  
  Of course given the utter contempt the collection/shakedown agencies have shown towards alternative broadcasting companies like Pandora, one has to wonder if the reason they refused to say which ones were legal to air was so that no matter what Pandora aired they could just say they were infringing, and sue them out of existence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matthew Cline (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 1:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    IANAL, but that's sounds like something which would really piss of a judge, which is why I thought I was misunderstanding it. I mean, there's the legal doctrine of "minimization of damages", which means the person who's (potentially) being damaged is supposed to take reasonable steps to minimize the damage they take, yet when ASCAP has a chance to minimize damages fall into their laps, they do nothing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:53am

Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
They're potentially able to gain FAR more than any single radion station is, the reach of which is limited.

But ya nearly had me convinced, college boy, until I thought on the FACTS of the case. Differences are sheerly a matter of market scope, not necessarily any intent to ruin the internet.

Here, take this link: shoutcast.com and then tell me that it's overly difficult to stream. THOUSANDS manage it. You're just favoring Pandora for whatever reason, besides as always attacking copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:58am
  
  Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
  Radio is radio and whether it is broadcasted traditionally or online is irrelevant.
  
  Many traditional radio stations also broadcast online so why does that not require higher licensing fees?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
    Oh really? So you're saying some radio station in Buttfuck, Iowa can get the same advertising rate as a global provider? Sweet, they'll be thrilled with your proclamation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
      No, but they can get the same licensing rate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
      Of course the radio station in some town in Idaho you've never heard of should be paying the same PER LISTENER price as some "global provider".
      
      The problem we have here is that one play on Pandora is a single person. A play on radio could be 100,000 people. Clearly those are NOT equivalent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
        A per listener rate should be the basis for any charges, whether for a local radio station or a global providers.
        The only thing I am unclear about is how much music publishers should be paying the radio stations per listener for their advertising.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2013 @ 4:28am
        
        Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
        Have you looked at the "currently listening" stats for online stations? They are tiny, per station. A local station gets a far bigger audience, or closes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Zakida Paul (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
      Who the hell mentioned advertising rates?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RadialSkid (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
        Apparently that's their excuse for the higher licensing rates.
        
        It's the same as the TV networks and Aereo, and Megaupload for that matter. It fundamentally comes from the entitlement complex of the entertainment industry hating for anyone to make money they don't get a slice of, whether they deserve it or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
  Arguably, a radio station can also "have the whole world for market". It's just a matter of beaming the signal to other continents via satellite, and then broadcasting it with ground stations as usual.
  
  Of course, the infrastructure is prohibitively expensive. But that's a situation that business experts refer to as "Waaah! Waaah! Cry some more!".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Togashi (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
    Sources have also quoted said business experts as saying, "What sick man sends babies to negotiate with me?"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matthew Cline (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Internet stations have THE WHOLE WORLD for market.
      "What was that, RIAA? Sue them all? Good idea!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:04am

ASCAP doesn't have a monopoly, you retard. BMI and SESAC are free to be used. And many of us do, including myself.

Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians.

Just like all the other tech parasites that pay you to lobby for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  Sources. Read them.
  
  Especially the part about the anti-trust agreement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Reality: try it sometime.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Zakida Paul (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Common sense: Try it sometime
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I suppose I can try your reality where facts and documents don't matter.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Schizophrenia: Not even once.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Glen, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Speaking of "sick jokes".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:22am
  
  Re:
  Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians.
  
  True, just like the radio stations, record stores, concert promoters, etc. What's the problem?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:40am
  
  Re:
  Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians.
  
  By asking for the same rates others pay? Really?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ComputerAddict (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Careful,
    
    ASCAP may soon realize they are under-charging terrestrial radio and raise those rates to match online prices.
    
    to... you know... "Save the Artists"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 11:29am
  
  Re:
  Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians.
  
  Can you supply an argument in support of this assertion?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    These links present arguments from musicians along those lines:
    
    http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/06/03/pandoras-epic-pr-fail-and-the-future-of-internet -radio/
    
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/tim-westergren-emails-pandora_n_3223603.html
    
    The funny thing is that the US is one of only three or four other countries who don't pay performers. Europe certainly never had any problem running profitable radio stations while paying performance royalties.
    
    I believe Clear Channel has already worked out a deal with most of the labels to begin paying performance royalties. Apple's new radio service looks to be doing the same. So, Pandora is going to be left in the lurch on this desperate move, I suppose. It'll be hard to claim they can't make money when the majors will be able to point out that others are doing so just fine, and raking it in, presumably.
    
    I have a feeling this will backfire in a good way. I don't think terrestrial radio will get away with not paying performance royalties for much longer. That was a raw deal from the very beginning that was slid by against musician's wishes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I read those articles, and they're an interesting discussion of the various issues around royalty rates. Thank you.
      
      However, neither of them support the assertion that Pandora is "trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 3:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I believe Clear Channel has already worked out a deal with most of the labels to begin paying performance royalties.
      
      Clear Channel is leading the lobbying campaign against paying performance royalties, so... that's interesting.
      
      Apple's new radio service looks to be doing the same.
      
      All internet services have to pay performance royalties. You seem to be confusing the rules for terristrial radio and internet radio.
      
      So, Pandora is going to be left in the lurch on this desperate move, I suppose.
      
      Pandora already pays performance royalties. The move in buying a radio station is not to get out of paying those, but to get the same rates that radio stations already get for their online streams.
      
      It'll be hard to claim they can't make money when the majors will be able to point out that others are doing so just fine, and raking it in, presumably.
      
      Who's making money from online streaming today?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 5:34pm
  
  Re:
  "Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians."
  
  Pandora are asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations, an action you claim is them "trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians". So are you implying that terrestrial radio stations are already getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Because that's the only logical conclusion to make from your claim. So where's your rant about terrestrial radio stations getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Should I look on The Trichordist?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 16 Jun 2013 @ 2:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Pandora are asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations
    
    To be clear:
    
    Pandora is asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations do for streaming on the Internet.
    
    That is, if you're a terrestrial radio station, and you run Internet streams in the same way that Pandora does, the terrestrial radio stations pay far less for their Internet streams.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:11am

wow
David Lowery levels of stupid happening on that site. What I found most amusing is that the entire purpose of that bunch seems to be to fuck with Pandora.

PANDORA PROVIDES A MUCH BETTER SERVICE THAN YOU FUKWITS EVER WILL.

Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: wow
  'PANDORA PROVIDES A MUCH BETTER SERVICE THAN YOU FUKWITS EVER WILL.'
  
  Well why else do you think they hate Pandora so much, it makes the 'service' they offer look like the crap it is in comparison.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:16am

Now, you might wonder, why would an innovative company that basically seems to be focused on making terrestrial radio stations obsolete need to own such a station... and Pandora is rather upfront in its answer: because the music collections societies, like ASCAP and BMI discriminate against internet companies, in direct violation of an antitrust agreement that ASCAP signed.

Ooh, let's look at that. Back up the argument that the "antitrust agreement" is being violated, Mike. You surely wouldn't repeat it as fact unless you had the goods to back it up, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2013 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re:
  That... would be the entire article that you didn't even read. Go back and read it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:24am

HOLY COW! Thanks RIAA for protecting me from tyranny!
Pandora is MUSIC NAZIS! FORCES one to listen to ensure you get the ADVERTISING! :
'Until May 2009, six skips per station were allowed per hour, further limited to 72 skips every 24 hours; giving a
"thumbs down" response, or a "don't play for a month" response, count as "skips". On 21 May 2009, the skip limit was altered such that it counts total skips from all stations with the limitation of twelve total skips every 24 hours. If a listener gives a song a thumbs-down or "don't play for a month" after the limit has been exceeded, the song will continue to play; it's only after the song has completed that it becomes subject to the listener's restrictions. This limit was not applied to the Vista gadget. Play of a single artist is limited. Pandora provides similar music, not a play-on-demand service.'

If THAT'S the future you want, kids, you are insane. I can't imagine letting that "service" use me. -- But NOW I see why Mike likes it! FORCED ADVERTISING! Is that the "new business model" you've been keeping secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: HOLY COW! Thanks RIAA for protecting me from tyranny!
  Advertising has always been a part of radio broadcasting. What is your point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Togashi (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re: HOLY COW! Thanks RIAA for protecting me from tyranny!
  If that's what you think about Pandora, I'd love to hear your thoughts on old school broadcast radio.
  
  Oh no, this radio station is FORCING me to listen to half an hour of nonstop ads! And they play songs I don't like, and they don't let me skip them! I can't turn it off or change the station or they'll EAT my SOUL!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:27am

But...?
During negotiations, ASCAP and the publisher increased the pressure by refusing to provide Pandora the list of tracks that were being withdrawn, exposing Pandora to copyright infringement liability of up to $150,000 per work.
Hang on! I thought only the government was allowed to have secret interpretations of what's legal and what's not!

...Oh, wait... the RIAA is the government, isn't it? Carry on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colin, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:32am

Whoa whoa whoa, guys. We're missing the important part: BMI is suing someone?! Shock. Awe. Etc. I can't believe they would do that. Way to bury the lead, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 10:35am

I think theyr'e trolling...
I just read the blog post on "Music First", it reads like a tirade from OOTB, seriously the only thing missing is the obligatory stab at Mike.

I seriously hope they are just trolling, but somehow I think they may be serious.

In any event, its them who are the sick joke, not Pandora, too bad they don't realize the irony of themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re: I think theyr'e trolling...
  Yep, and I wonder why they don't allow comments?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jackn, 14 Jun 2013 @ 11:04am

to be honest, those terrestrial rates only include about 12 of the lamest songs. The terrestrial stations are forced to play thes same dozen songs, over and over and over and over.

Pandora should deal with unsigned songwriters/performers/bands directly. We could get some new blood and creativity, and stick it to the legacy monsters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 11:15am
  
  Nice idea, but wouldn't work
  Wouldn't matter in the slightest if they aired nothing but music by unsigned artist/bands, the shakedown agencies would still claim that they pay up just the same, 'just in case Pandora played music by a label musician'.
  
  It's the same reason it's all but impossible for any business to have independent bands play at their establishments, because they get fined the same no matter what is played.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 14 Jun 2013 @ 11:29am

Damn that dirty business for trying to maximize it's profits and minimize it's costs by manipulation of the rules being imposed on it. ONLY ASCAP can do this, no one else, even patent for it. Bad Pandora Bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  we should go back to the payola days. The producers pay the radio station to play the song for exposure (to sell records, concerts, etc..)
  
  That would be sweet
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zos (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:03pm

this is why we can't have nice things. (without pirating them)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sonja (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 12:23pm

spotify
Maybe someone can answer this. How does Spotify and Pandora compare in terms of licencing they have to pay? Is it the same?

I loved Pandora, its a pity I don't have access to it anymore since I am not in the US. I found some awesome artists through Pandora and bought their music too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]