Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pandora Wants Radio Stations To Pay For Music, Too

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the fair-is-fair dept.

Music 253

suraj.sun sends along an Ars writeup of the lobbying Pandora is doing now that it has secured its future, royalties-wise. Some might think it odd that Pandora is weighing in on the side of the record labels in their fight to get radio stations to pay more for the music they broadcast. "US radio stations don't pay performers and producers for the music they play, but the recording industry hopes to change that with a new performance rights bill in Congress. Webcaster Pandora has jumped into the fray on the side of the artists and labels, asking why radio gets a free ride when Pandora does not. ... With revenues from recorded music sales declining, rights-holders have turned their eyes in recent years to commercial US radio, which currently pays songwriters (but not performers or record labels)... With its own future secure for the next few years, Pandora is now turning its attention to the public performance debate here in the US, saying that the issue is a simple matter of fairness: why should webcasters have to pay more for music than traditional radio does? ... [But] the 'fairness' argument could clearly go either way. Radio might start paying a performance right; on the other hand, perhaps webcasters and satellite radio companies should simply stop paying one, relying on the old argument about promotion."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SUCK MY DICK (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686323)

you faggots

Re:SUCK MY DICK (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686355)

Even if I was gay I would do far better than the likes of you asshole.

Does posting this crap make you feel tough does it?

It just makes you look like a fucking wanker, which of course you are, and a gay one at that.

Begone child.

(-:

Re:SUCK MY DICK (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686487)

Someone's jealous they didn't get the frist psot.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686325)

First

but seriously how about we just wipe out the riaa monop completly

What? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686341)

Why wouldn't they side with the Radio broadcasters as a way to use that as an argument to decrease their own costs. I mean, they have nothing to lose in the end.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

wakingrufus (904726) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686573)

They tried this already and it didn't work. so now its plan B time.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687003)

Exactly - This should not be a surprise.

Pandora is a cool service and they're playing the cards they've been dealt. Maybe those cards are largely viewed as unfair, but they want a level playing field. Why would anyone expect them to pony up for fees that some of their major competition (even though it's different technology) is immune to? Sure it would be better if they could win free broadcasting, but now that they've lost that battle they're just trying to level the playing field.

Hell, you could even view this as Pandora trying to get a couple of more players into the "let us broadcast w/o complications" game...

Re:What? (-1, Troll)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687033)

Sorry for the admittedly off-topic self-reply, but it seems a little rough to post this article so late at night (by Mountain-time US standards) when so many registered users will be viewing this from areas that just lost Pandora... Sorry non-USians. We like the RIAA even less than you. As soon as your citizens get stupid enough to pump as much $$ as ours have into Britney Spears and the like (or smart enough to start supporting diverse talent on the same level as we support a select few pop stars), your RIAA equivalents can start competing with ours and we can suffer equally instead of selfishly.

Do you need access to a good torrent server to substitute for the lack of streaming of American music? I'm afraid it's the best I can offer.

(Please mods, don't confuse attempted humor for Troll. Hit me with Off-topic if I failed to interest you, but not the Troll mod - I am no Troll.)

Free Market At It's Best (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687187)

In typical modern capitalism fashion, companies are free to compete for exclusivity and preferential treatment, but not freely with each other.

The playing field is never even, and be it lobbying with congress, inking expensive deals, hiring an army of salesmen and lawyers, or leveraging your monopolistic weight, big businesses know how to tilt the market so money trickles only their way. New comers and outsiders on the wrong side of the slope cannot compete by price or quality, and the issue precedes supply and demand.

Death to clearchannel! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686361)

Sounds fair to me... We make internet radio pay up big bucks to play music.

And the radio stations have been getting it for free! how dare they! (be our paid shills for crap music)

Level the playing field!

US of A-centric (1)

Prince of Sarcasm (1258052) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686369)

Perhaps Canada is a leading the way on fees for once? (see bullet 6 [blogspot.com] )

Contact your state senator!!! (0, Troll)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686371)

Seriously. Email/write/call your state representative about this bill and tell them how this bill is severely diminish the quality of all radios out there. Urge them to vote against it!!

It's enough that we have to pay higher taxes, but don't let them take away our free music.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686455)

"but don't let them take away our free music."

Well, you paid for the radio and whatnot, how about you buy a guitar and have all the free music you could want?

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686645)

how about you buy a guitar and have all the free music you could want?

Popular music, the music that the majority of people actually choose to listen to, is non-free even if you're performing it yourself.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (1)

fireheadca (853580) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686699)

oh! and you can download tabs off the OLGA.... oh wait. . . hope you're original.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (5, Insightful)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686463)

Hell no, I'm going to tell my elected officials to vote for it.

Sure we might lose mainstream music radio, but most of them are Clearchannel anyway. I can simulate a week of a Clearchannel station with a mini-CDR in a player set to deterministic shuffle.

On the upside, we gain a shot at lots of mobile bandwidth if the radio industry crumbles, plus we set the music & radio industries at each others throats, and any outcome besides the status quo also is likely to result in a weakened music industry(now or later) or more small artists getting radioplay cause they're cheaper.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (5, Funny)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686653)

I can simulate a week of a Clearchannel station with a mini-CDR in a player set to deterministic shuffle.

Alternatively, one could save the cost of the CDR and still generate a passable simulation of a Clearchannel station, by beating oneself over the head with a stick for a few hours.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (5, Insightful)

baKanale (830108) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686761)

Sure we might lose mainstream music radio, but most of them are Clearchannel anyway.

That might be one outcome. Alternately, we might just lose the independent stations and be stuck with all Clear Channel. This sort of regulation always hurts the little guys more than the big conglomerates.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (3, Interesting)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687103)

That might be one outcome. Alternately, we might just lose the independent stations and be stuck with all Clear Channel.

Perhaps we don't care anymore either way? With car stereos able to hook up to iPods and the mash of annoying commercials/on-air "personalities" one has to listen too are people even using their radios anymore? I have a broken antennae on my car. I can get pretty much two radio stations reliably: NPR, and the local college's radio station. Considering the college station is a non-commercial low-power transmitter and the public radio station is, well, a public radio station I imagine they'll be immune to these changes, and I don't listen to those two stations anyway. All i listen to is my own CDs, some of which are actual CDs and some of which are burned with digital music files I bought at online stores or acquired through other means.

I learn about new music either through word of mouth from people I know online, other works the music gets used in like commercials or movie soundtracks, or listening to samples at online music stores and bands' own websites.

Radio? Who needs it!

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687197)

Some of us with working radios actually listen to it.

When I can listen to 'radio' on my phone, while wondering around the ozarks for days on end, then I might consider no longer listening to radio.

Since my phone requires far to many batteries to do that, and cell coverage in rural areas is a joke on a good day, I don't really think its going away tomorrow just because you don't listen to it.

America isn't just a collection of cities with few people inbetween like europe or japan, we have people all over the country side and alternative broadcast methods aren't good enough to compete with terrestrial radio.

Sat radio is rather useless for emergency broadcasts for many reasons, so you won't see any tornado workings on XM or Sirius since A) they'd have to tell everyone in the country about every warning basically and that'd annoy the piss out of people everywhere else, and well, more important is that XM/Sirius tend to cut own during storms so the people who need the warning would never hear them.

If it's not pirate.. (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687173)

It's not independent. Anyway, we lost most of the independent radio stations in the 90's.

Perhaps their hope is that by playing this game they either A) effect an industry they might see as a competitor or B) they gain an ally in short term with their own fight who can help with legislation and/or rate negotiation. Kind of a reversal of what they might have seen as a divide and conquer scheme that landed them the different rates in the first place.

Of course the real fight is still coming as we begin the transition from analog broadcasting to an all digital networked signal. After all, a cell phone is just a radio device.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (5, Insightful)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686789)

Sure we might lose mainstream music radio, but most of them are Clearchannel anyway.

Except that this will actually help the largest stations by killing off their smaller competitors who can't afford the new fees. If you think things are bad now, just wait until this bill gets passed.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (5, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687039)

On the upside, we gain a shot at lots of mobile bandwidth if the radio industry crumbles

No, you won't. These frequencies are also shared with all sorts of navigation equipment, that luckly enough radio stations contribute to. Pilots regularly use standard radio stations in place of VOR transmitters for navigation. This is one of the primary reasons that radio stations have to say their callsigns at required intervals, so pilots can identify the station should they have some sort of insturment failure which allows them to tune in, but not know what they are tuning into. Once you figure out what you're listening to, and which direction it is, you can use just a few more landmarks or another station to figure out where the hell you are.

Very useful if you're in a small craft at night with partial equipment failures, and doing so is a requirement for getting an instrument rating for private pilots.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (2, Funny)

omeomi (675045) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686525)

severely diminish the quality of all radios out there.

Have you actually listened to the radio? How can it get any worse? Oh no, I won't be able to hear the same eleven songs played over and over and over again with random call-ins by idiots asking for the same crappy song that got played 30 minutes ago. I don't know if this legislation will help make radio better, but I can't imagine it getting much worse than it already is.

Re:Worse (2, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686997)

It already has.

There was a vague musical trend of each half-decade up until about 2005. You could decided something felt "dated" but at least it felt like it belonged to some era.

Now they're running out of fresh genres, and desperately working the 2nd level blended stuff.

No need! (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686539)

Seriously. Email/write/call your state representative about this bill and tell them how this bill is severely diminish the quality of all radios out there. Urge them to vote against it!!

I'd say that the quality of radio already was severely diminished when a few corporations started buying up every channel in the country so that they could ram their selected artists down the public's throat by playing their hit songs over and over every hour.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686631)

Wait ur saying the radio could get WORSE? I say we vote for it and see if that is at all possible. I dont think it can be done unless Lady Gaga releases 5 more singles and they too get more play value than michael jackson got the day he died.

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686795)

Why are so many Americans such fatasses?

Re:Contact your state senator!!! (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686883)

Just for grins, maybe the stations will raise fees to promote bands and labels to offset the new cost of doing business. This may be a good thing to raise costs to promote the bland bands. If you think payola to promote bands was bad before, wait until this bill passes an only payola of the highest budget plays on the radio.

Two different beasts (1, Insightful)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686375)

The internet provides all sorts of dynamics in the music being played. Radio has "Phone in a request" once in a blue moon. This would literally kill music radio, as radio stations don't have a direct way to charge the listeners. Something tells me this is simply Pandora having a hissy fit over having to pay.

Re:Two different beasts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686473)

Mod parent up, while I think that music publishers are going way to far a lot of the time, this is true.

Re:Two different beasts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686533)

I would have mod it up hadn't been for the misuse of the word "literally." Barf.

Greed (1)

acehole (174372) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686381)

Pure greed when the industry turns in on itself to make a buck.

Re:Greed (2, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686521)

Greed isn't the problem, as that's here to stay, and in fact the free market capitalizes on that to drive efficiency. The problem is governments constantly expanding their intrusion on the free market, giving unequal advantages to those who direct their intrusion. Physical property? Check. Imaginary property? In your dreams! End of problem.

Re:Greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686617)

Greed only drives efficiency in making money - not making product or making product better. Just thought I'd clarify that before someone gets stupid with it.

Re:Greed (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687057)

You mean like Wells Fargo?

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686389)

If the price of playing a song goes up we'll probably get to listen to even more blathering for the DJs.

Why Internet radio should pay more (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686399)

Internet radio has a potential audience that spans the globe. Radio stations are typically limited by geography and signal power.

Why should passengers flying from New York to Tokyo pay more than flying from Seattle to Portland? Because the distance is longer.

Re:Why Internet radio should pay more (1)

shermo (1284310) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686427)

Living up to your name again I see. It's not a question of the amount that should be paid. It's a question of who should get paid.

It's more like not paying the pilots on a Seattle to Portland flight.

Re:Why Internet radio should pay more (2, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686471)

It's more like not paying the pilots on a Seattle to Portland flight.

Yeah? Well screw them guys, it's the cabin stewards who bring me the peanuts, not the pilots. What's the pilot going to do about it, crash the damn plane? Not when he's sitting in it too.

:-)

Re:Why Internet radio should pay more (3, Funny)

shermo (1284310) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686759)

Yeah! He was probably going that way anyway.

Re:Why Internet radio should pay more (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686601)

Internet radio has a potential audience that spans the globe. Radio stations are typically limited by geography and signal power.

Why should passengers flying from New York to Tokyo pay more than flying from Seattle to Portland? Because the distance is longer.

Your logic would make sense, except that Pandora pays for every single song played for every single listener. So they access a larger audience and they pay disproportionally more per listener than regular radio stations.

In your airplane example, this would be like passengers flying from NY to Tokyo on a 777 paying more than if they flew on a 737. Same distance, same cramped seat, but you pay more because of the larger audience.

Re:Why Internet radio should pay more (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686719)

In your airplane example, this would be like passengers flying from NY to Tokyo on a 777 paying more than if they flew on a 737. Same distance, same cramped seat, but you pay more because of the larger audience.

Wouldn't it be the airline needing to pay more for the flight since they are the ones shuttling more passengers? And given that it is their responsibility to fill the seats, a 777 offers the opportunity to make more money off the increase in passengers?

Re:Why Internet radio should pay more (5, Insightful)

cyn1c77 (928549) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686945)

But Pandora is paying more per person. They pay a fee each time a song is played to a single user account. Regular radio stations do not pay a fee per person, they pay per song.

The 777 takes advantage of the economy of scale. With a larger plane, the airline can carry more people, but they use more fuel. But it works out that as the planes get bigger, the passenger profit increases faster than the fuel cost because a slightly bigger and efficient engine can carry a lot more people.

They record labels have managed to argue that since Pandora could reach more people, they should pay more per user. It's really quite ridiculous, but I guess the labels need to make up for lost profits somewhere.

Bring it on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686439)

The sooner that the Music Industry starts playing the "payed tier" game like certain OS manufacturers, the better. Through the power of diminishing returns, radio station budgets and a public totally aware of the bullshit that's going on, only then will we see public hanging of corporate executives. We will see them hunted down for the dogs that they are and shot down rabidly in the streets. All because of the loss of non-essential entertainment.

Hey, a fella can dream can't he?

Re:Bring it on! (2, Insightful)

oatworm (969674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687067)

Generally speaking, when revolutions come, they don't tend to fare particularly well for the intellectual class (i.e. those that would read Slashdot). Honestly, I'd rather have a reasonably pacified populace than have to wonder if that guy in the trailer park down the street is coveting my "decadent and bourgeoisie" Kia.

olde tyme radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686445)

wishing they could go back to the days when the DJs took money from the producers and promoters to play songs.

Re:olde tyme radio (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686495)

On the other hand, that also makes it harder for indie artists...

Re:olde tyme radio (3, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686659)

On the other hand, that also makes it harder for indie artists...

Having heard the quality of most "indie artists," all I can say is thank God for that.

Subterfuge (4, Insightful)

grapeape (137008) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686509)

Im surprised by how many are upset over this. Think about it for a minute, the vast majority are still clueless when it comes to the actions of the Music Industry, Pandora no doubt sees this as an opportunity to bring awareness to the masses of an archaic system thats time has passed.

Re:Subterfuge (4, Insightful)

TomRK1089 (1270906) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686875)

I agree. Pandora tried to avoid the fees, and failed. I see this as not an endorsement but a backhanded rebuttal -- "Well, industry, time to put your money where your mouth is! Is radio good because it generates buzz, and it being free is the acceptable tradeoff, or not?"

Re:Subterfuge (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687233)

Pandora is looking after Pandora's interests. I'd barely heard of this pithy organisation before last week and now they're all over the news. Just get back in your box. We don't want or need you.

When i was younger (3, Interesting)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686531)

They paid radio to play your song, so people would actually hear it and buy it... As a matter of fact, with one of my current bands, we still do that. Not in money, but by calling them every day and get a live performance on the radio... It's for them great to have live music and it's great for us to have an wider audience. A well, I must be getting old.

Re:When i was younger (5, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686901)

There are different people in charge now.

People that would rather make a buck today than ten bucks next week.

People that would collapse an entire industry so they could retire nicely, despite the fact that they were all but guaranteed a nice retirement anyway.

There are artists that don't believe in art, musicians who don't believe in music, and there are for-profit corporations that don't believe in sustainable profit. It's a sad, sad world.

Pandora trying to move radio to their side? (3, Insightful)

bukuman (1129741) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686545)

Perhaps Pandora hopes to have radio come to the aid of internet radio - "We'll drag you down with us if you don't step up!".

Re:Pandora trying to move radio to their side? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686575)

Ah yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, quite clever =)

Re:Pandora trying to move radio to their side? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686595)

oh you infidel :P Nah but seriously... and this I say as a musician... we need the radio to survive. The radio makes us 'famous'. And it doesn't matter if your a indy-band or Britney Spears, if the radio and MTV ignore, you really have a problem.

Re:Pandora trying to move radio to their side? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686685)

The last 20 albums I've purchased I have found through NPR or Pandora or Amazon weekly specials. I honestly can't remember the last album I bought based on radio or mtv (the don't play music the last time I checked). I know I'm probably atypical but I probably buy as much music as your average teenager and I don't have to be advertised to I just have to be shown you have talent. I also think I'm probably closer to the future music consumer than the kid with the tigerbeat poster on the wall listening to the pop station in their hometown is.

Re:Pandora trying to move radio to their side? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686717)

I have no doubt you are a educated musiclover and I can only aplaud that. But 80% of my earnings come from the people who happen to hear us on a radiostation or on a mp3 they hear at a friends house. It's not something you can wave away when it's your income. Sure, a lot of people are like you and I and go looking for music, but many more just happen to hear something and think... ow I like that. And don't forget the impact it has when people hear a song multiple times. That's how you get in a top 40 or top 100.

Re:Pandora trying to move radio to their side? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686985)

You should link to your music in your profile or sig, that's a great place for me to find new music =) I especially like to support artists who act like civil people and explain their stance rather than assuming I'm a criminal ala Lars.

Re:Pandora trying to move radio to their side? (0, Offtopic)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687027)

I would awsner this in a pm if we had them, but yesterday someone asked me the same thing here. The reason I don't do that is because Santax is my alter-ego for slashdot. We often take strong political stances here and I want to keep my music-life seperated from my thoughts on such subjects. I sort of like the anonymous-thingie that is behind this nickname. I will keep it in mind though, and we knows, one day it will be in there. But for now I come here for the stuf that matters :P Btw, I like this way of discussion also. No need for name calling, we always can agree to disagree :)

I'm all for it (2, Funny)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686555)

And if you hear someone humming a song, turn them in to the ASPCA ASAP

ASPCA or ASCAP? (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686667)

ASPCA

Did you mean ASCAP, or did a subtle joke about animal cruelty just fly over my head?

Re:ASPCA or ASCAP? (2, Funny)

The Rizz (1319) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687043)

I suppose that would depend on the song.

People still listen to music radio? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686557)

I thought that went the way of the dodo. You can't get FM on the iPod, and who doesn't have a CD player or mp3 jack in their car? Who gives a crap about shitty-sounding distorted 'loud' FM pop music?

Re:People still listen to music radio? (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686693)

You can't get FM on the iPod, and who doesn't have a CD player or mp3 jack in their car?

Not one of the cars that I regularly ride in has a 3.5mm stereo audio input; they're all either older or low-end. They might have tape or CD, but for a playlist longer than 80 minutes or so, the only sort of "mp3 jack" that works in every car is an FM transmitter on an unused frequency.

Re:People still listen to music radio? (2, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686921)

Or a tape adapter.

Re:People still listen to music radio? (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686939)

I bought a tape adapter for my car's iPod. I was happy with it until I actually tried to use it, at which point I realized I didn't have a cassette desk in my car... *eye roll*

Re:People still listen to music radio? (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687007)

That would work better if I had any unused frequencies on my commute, most get bits from the station above and render a fm transmitter useless.

I got that good old tape adapter works like a charm.

Re:People still listen to music radio? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28687093)

I thought that went the way of the dodo.

Can we please stop using this hackneyed phrase? For god's sake it wasn't even clever the first time.

Pandora is just being smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686569)

.. since this will just get all normal radio stations on the side of Pandora - ie that radio should pay no royalties.

advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686611)

at least the Pandora guys give you the option to buy what you're listening to on iTunes or Amazon, unlike a radio station.

Radio Data System (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686729)

at least the Pandora guys give you the option to buy what you're listening to on iTunes or Amazon, unlike a radio station.

If you mean enough artist and title information to write it down and buy it later, FM radio has that too [wikipedia.org] . If you mean a button to Buy It Now, how would that work in a vehicle? Not everybody has $700 per year to spend on mobile broadband.

Re:Radio Data System (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686839)

Imho, TFA refers to a protocol for finding out who is billable. If you're not billable, they'd go upstream one, and bill whoever broadcast, etc...

It's not feasible/politically desirable for them to bill individuals per track so far. Heck, if they did, they'd encourage piracy like you wouldn't believe... "What? I've got to pay 5 cents for every single song that plays, no matter if I like it or not? What's this? a scam? You gotta be kidding me, I'm taking my business elsewhere..."

Only, by then, there's no elsewhere to take it to...

New Model - Bill everyone (5, Insightful)

fireheadca (853580) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686655)

Just give up and bill everyone:

Bill the artists for making it and everytime it's played.
Bill the distributor and packaging plant.
Bill the radio stations for playing it.
Bill the store for selling it.
Bill the Moving Picture Experts Group when it's moved digitally.
Bill your mom.
Bill the listener for liking it.
Bill them if they don't like it.
Bill Microsoft and Al Gore for bringing the internet.
Bill Apple and the beatles.
Bill Linux just cause. ...and when they don't pay: Sue them.

This Greed - It's becoming bloody disgusting.

---
"Don't be too troubled. He'll be all right now. He left a packet for you.
There it is!"

This was done in Australia (5, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686661)

This was done in Australia, and overnight the amount of Australian music broadcast dropped to close to zero. For a couple of years the government rattled sabres threatening to cancel broadcast licences and then eventually radio stations were charged for all content and not just Australian content. It really didn't matter if there were cases where there was no way the money charged could actually get back to the copyright holders because IT'S A SCAM. The money claimed on behalf of the local copyright holders that theoretically could get back to them does not and is absorbed in "administrative costs" for instance huge payouts to board members of the organisation running the scam. The British version of this is a prime example.

Radio vs Pandora (1, Insightful)

morsmortis (1579229) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686713)

How the hell did these stations survive past the 90s? Seriously? This technology should be fazed out and the frequency bands allocated to something worthwhile. Radio was going the right way in the late 80s by playing local bands and more underground music, but that changed during the 90s and any kind of underground music was gone by 2000. (unless you listened to a college AM station) Since Pandora supports a broader range of music from Beethoven to Burzum, I hope they cause these shitty stations the pain they deserve for making my radio useless. Even the local 80s station stopped playing 80s music and started playing coldplay.... wtf? If I was Pandora I would try to team up with verizon and use that new wireless they are working on to compete with the radio. People who listen to music will pick Pandora; people who like to listen to short, ugly guys talk all day , will pick the radio.

Radio Stations are already fighting this. (4, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686805)

One of the radio stations I depend on for traffic reports is already fighting this. They run several advertisements predicting the free music you listen to is at risk of being eliminated by congress with new fees on the music they play. Call your congressman right away to stop this legislation that will end free music on radio.

The NAB, National Association of Broadcasters is leading the charge to oppose the bill.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-radio3-2009jul03,0,6937549.story/ [latimes.com]

Re:Radio Stations are already fighting this. (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687111)

Somehow, the old radio laws have been thrown out, and Clear Channel has been allowed to gain a near monopoly on the radio market in America. Now regular radio is worse than ever.

However, the most innovative radio companies must pay royalties. Sirius/XM must pay royalties, Web Radio must pay royalties, therefore regular radio must pay royalties too. When regular radio implodes, it will be clear to everyone that the whole system needs to change. And another good side effect is getting rid of another near monopoly.

NAB deserves to lose this round (5, Insightful)

UglyRedHonda (893014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687119)

NAB spent the last several years arguing that satellite radio should be forced to pay these royalties. Prior to those hearings, satellite hadn't been paying, since they were arguing that they were another form of radio. Any lawyer worth their salt would have told NAB to support satellite radio as protection against something like this. But they didn't. They saw a chance to eliminate a competitor, and hoped to saddle them with an additional expense.

One of the first victims of their stupidity were the NAB member stations that were streaming on the Internet. Previously, they hadn't had to pay, either - which was a good thing for them, considering that most streams had their advertising removed from the stream, and weren't generally profitable on their own.

Their arguments as to why they shouldn't have to pay are outdated. They claim that they're giving free promotion to music, but how many terrestrial stations are actually giving exposure to new music? Seriously - how many stations in your town are currently recycling everyone's favorite hits from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s? Radio knows that new music doesn't draw listeners - it's easier to take the free ride and give audiences the music they already know and love.

Radio should have to pay. Given NAB's size, it shouldn't be difficult to negotiate with SoundExchange for a lower rate.

Re:Radio Stations are already fighting this. (2, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687215)

NAB should have stood up for Pandora which is really just another form of broadcasting, but they didn't. They made their bed, time to sleep in it.

Declining? (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686809)

The free dutch newspaper "De pers" had an intresting article about music sales yesterday. Or rather not about music sales at all which is probably why the copier (oops sorry journalist) failed to make the connection.

The story? A pension fund was reporting they made 8% profit last year, when the entire economy had collapsed, on their music portfolio. The article told that music rights are big business with a steady reliable revenue stream and that after 10 years you have made enough profit to have paid for the purchase of the rights and from then on its pure profits.

But yeah, music sales are declining.

How can music be an extremely reliable investment for pension funds when the sales are going down? The only similar reliable investment is in things like supermarkets because people always got to eat.

How can you tell someone from the content industry is lying? They got their mouth open.

All For It (5, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686833)

The RIAA giving radio a compelling reason to play independent artists is exactly what we need. They can only hurt themselves.

I find it ironic that not too long ago payola was a serious problem, and now we have this. These are the death throws of the recording industry, and I think that is a great thing.

Re:All For It (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687223)

The RIAA giving radio a compelling reason to play independent artists is exactly what we need.

Great, now instead of listening to at least well produced (probably still bad) music on the radio, now we'll be listening to a bunch of 'indie artists' who don't realize the reason they are 'indie' is because they fucking suck, not because they haven't been discovered.

Reverse Payola? (1)

Anna Merikin (529843) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686841)

Only a few months ago, it was charged in the US Congress that record companies have been paying radio stations (again, like in the fifties) to play their records.

Now they want the stations to pay them?

Playing a recording on the air is better than advertising it, and the record companies know it.

This effort is bound to fail, if not ignite laughter.

listen live music radio (0, Flamebait)

marknik (1596739) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686863)

Detectives and Mysteries oldtime radio old radio Golden Days of Radio Nostalgia ... These are Easy Listening Beautiful Music Favorites! Listen to selections marknik Carpet Cleaning Toronto [google.ca]

Re:listen live music radio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28687169)

I will find and murder you.

bmi/ascap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28686897)

It's been a while since I had anything to do with broadcasting, but it used to be that stations had to have licenses from BMI and ASCAP for public performance rights. What ever happened to that?

Gotta agree here (5, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | more than 5 years ago | (#28686917)

If online radio has to pay, and satellite has to pay (for those of you who didn't know that, they do), then broadcast radio should also have to pay.

Broadcast radio keeps insisting what they want is a level playing field. Well, it ain't level if they don't have to pay.

No in between bullshit, all commercial broadcasters should be treated the same, regardless of the actual method of broadcast...either charge no one, or charge everyone.

A little joy for the dance music community. (3, Informative)

ins0m (584887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687019)

Warning: I work with EDM-variety music producers.

This is actually fantastic news. When we provide ala carte downloads for our tracks, they usually get shunned and our systems spend hours each month uploading to Rhapsody and the like... for $6 royalty statements.

The net result?

An hour block of unadvertised, "live mix" content wherein the latest music gets performed and no one pays a red cent to Harry Fox. It works thusly:

1. DJ in our roster wishes to promote.
2. Under US tax code, any music said DJ has paid for is a business expense as an appropriation of requisite tools to perform said job.
3. DJ plays promotional mix set, commercial free, and it's released to the blogs under fair use.
5. Profit. DJ sees more bookings as a result for live-performance gigs. The hottest tracks have already been promoted to BBC Radio One and artists see more BDS numbers as a result. People buy more hardcopies as a result of extended exposure.
6. You missed there wasn't a step 4, and there is no "... Profit?" meme.

It would take a bit of renegade work, but there isn't any reason why bands can't be promoted in the same way. It's more on the radio DJ's taking the responsibility for ownership instead of the studio for the tracks performed, but that would effectively shut down payola in most cases. With the advent of the Internet, it means these streams can be put out royalty-free and can survive for public enjoyment, while increasing artist exposure and cutting the middleman out. How would the site maintain itself? Through rabid fans. Just look at DogsOnAcid for an example.

An anti-RIAA-SoundExchange copyright licence (5, Interesting)

Vectorius (1593309) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687061)

The imminent death of Internet radio has led me to think of ways of modifying the Creative Commons share and share-alike non-commercial license. I wish to release some music I have composed, but before I do this, I would like to craft a variant of the creative commons licence under which SoundExchange, the RIAA and their legal representatives would be subject to a $10,000,000 fine if they listen to my music, create derivative works based on it, or if they attempt enforce my rights under the copyright act.

Specifically, the license I would like should impose a crippling fine on SoundExchange in case it attempts to collect royalties on my behalf paid by services making ephemeral phonorecords or digital audio transmissions of sound recordings, or both, under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112 and 17 U.S.C. 114 or if it attempts to distribute the collected royalties to me pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 114(g)(2). The license should go beyond merely threatening the possibilityof a lawsuit--it should stipulate an RIAA-level fine against SoundExchange and its legal representatives.

If such a license could be crafted with sufficient care, and if sufficiently many musicians were to release music under this license, in time it could effectively criminalize SoundExchange, the RIAA and its lawyers.

Obvious to anyone other than me? (2, Interesting)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687085)

I think it's pretty obvious what Pandora is angling at here, they're attacking the obvious double-standard. Problem is that if it goes the other way, then that's pretty much the last nail in the coffin of broadcast radio; it's already only a marginally profitable business to be in anymore, and having to pay more royalties will kill most of them off for good.

so let's get this straight (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687089)

MTV doesn't play music. Radio stations will stop playing music now too. Services like last.fm and Pandora only suggest music you already know about anyway. Live music sounds like crap (hey mr. indy band ever heard of an eq?). And I don't even care, because the industry quit making music long ago, it's just taken awhile for everyone to catch up.

Re:so let's get this straight (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687193)

Yes, radio was killed years ago here in ZA too, my ears bleed from it - and not the good kind of bleeding you want! Pandora also stopped serving countries outside US, it sucks ugly balls - but I'll still support them in this! Stick it to the man!

Fr1st 5top (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28687127)

So that you don't Whatever path is It just 0wnz.', exploited that. A [4mazingkrTeskin.com] and the bottom poor priorities,

I say we... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28687145)

For real? People still pay for their music? I say we start a fund that pays outrageous fines to those few poor bastards that get sued and distribute music freely.
Unknowingly RIAA will create their own problems.
Clear lack of planning for emerging technology coupled with lower overhead will eventually erode consumer confidence in spending the money they demand.
Knowing their customers wants and needs should be a cornerstone of their business.

Reimbursing the RIAA with a fund fueled with with $1 per person per lifetime should suffice. Let them sue away. Senior citizens should be prorated.
I'm just waiting for the day when instead of ambulance chasers we have riaa hounds that follow court filings.
After the fallout all we will be left with is more talk radio.
Anyways I thought the reason the music industry pays the artists so little is for their distrobution and promotion. If they charge for that wtf would artists need them?

Death to the Sound Thieves! (5, Funny)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687181)

I think what they've found here is right. The Radio Format has been getting a free ride and so have all those brigands listening to it in their cars. All the people in the world are a bunch of no-good sound thieves, Hell, they even have large fleshy scoops on the side of their heads just sucking up and stealing all the free sounds they can get close to. If only we could have those things permanently blocked so the only sounds that come through them are properly paid and licensed by the source.

I should start going to sleep at night with earmuffs on so some ghetto-blasting kid in a donk doesn't come cruising down the street blasting hip-hop and turning me into a music pirate. Then I'd have no choice but to turn myself in for participating in an illegal public listening of a song I didn't pay for.

Music is a Business. Let's Negotiate. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28687205)

If the recording industry wants the public to pay it more money for being good at making contracts with musicians, okay. In exchange let's repeal the Bono Act of 1998. This law not lengthened new music copyrights to 95 years, it placed every audio recording made before 1972 under copyright until 2067. Thousands of older works were re-copyrighted even though they had already been in the public domain for many years. If this law were repealed, historical works such as wax cylinder recordings made by Thomas Edison in the 1890s, which are now protected until 2067, would again be available for public use as they should be. I don't think this is too big a concession in return for creating a brand new revenue source for the industry.

Pandora's Box (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28687213)

You dont know what will come after opening it. Maybe the system could hold it running even with bigger charges, or maybe not, and be the end of radio, RIAA, music as something commercial or most major artists revolt and just put in Creative Commons all their work. Sometimes change end being good in the middle/long run,
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?