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!

ASCAP Petitions FCC To Deny Pandora's Purchase of Radio Station

samzenpus posted 1 year,22 days | from the just-say-no dept.

United States 229

chipperdog writes "NorthPine.com reports: 'ASCAP is firing back against Pandora Radio's attempt to get lower music royalty rates by buying a terrestrial radio station, "Hits 102.7" (KXMZ Box Elder-Rapid City). In a petition to deny, ASCAP alleges "Pandora has failed to fully disclose its ownership, and to adequately demonstrate that it complies with the Commission's foreign ownership rules." ASCAP also alleges that Pandora has no intention of operating KXMZ to serve the public interest, but is rather only interested in obtaining lower royalty rates. Pandora reached a deal to buy KXMZ from Connoisseur Media for $600,000 earlier this year and is already running the station through a local marketing agreement.'"

cancel ×

229 comments

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

Fuck ASCAP (5, Informative)

Type44Q (1233630) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415359)

Fuck ASCAP and everything they represent.

Re:Fuck ASCAP (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415597)

But it's no FAIR! ASCAP wants to go to the LAAAAAAKKEEE!!!!!!

Re:Fuck ASCAP (0)

LifesABeach (234436) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415655)

So the acts that Rufford Murdoch serve the public interest? I'm certain the parents of Milly Dowler would be enlightened.

Re:Fuck ASCAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415887)

Who is Rufford Murdoch?

Re:Fuck ASCAP (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416261)

Rupert Murdoch's dog. Named in a process similar to Katy Perry's cat, Kitty Purry.

Re:Fuck ASCAP (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416345)

Who is Rufford Murdoch?

You don't know Rufus? Rufus is Rupert's Cajun, cantankerous old coot of a cousin that hails from the Bayou.

Ah, that Rufus... what a character.

Re:Fuck ASCAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416463)

No, no, that's Rupedeaux Murdoch.

Intentions (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415363)

ASCAP also alleges that Pandora has no intention of operating KXMZ to serve the public interest, but is rather only interested in obtaining lower royalty rates.

Paying lower royalty rates to parasites like ASCAP unquestionably serves the public interest.

Re:Intentions (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415457)

Nothing more parasitic than a songwriter getting paid for the public performance of their work... shame on those people... shame.

Re:Intentions (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415505)

You think the songwriters actually get more than a pittance from ASCAP?

Re:Intentions (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415609)

I'm a songwriter and to get a few cents from ASCAP I have to pay them.

Re:Intentions (2)

Nickodeimus (1263214) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416143)

I am speaking from ignorance here, so keep that in mind...

Couldn't you sue them for something like racketeering? I've heard this way too many times from local artists for it not to be true on at least some level.

Re:Intentions (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416281)

it's a very, very high bar for rico/racketeering. Proof of malice or something, if I recall? IANAL (lawyers, correct me?) While that's easily and clearly what ASCAP is doing to the average individual, the likeliness of success in court proving it is basically zero. They get to parade around with this shit saying how they protect "artist's interests" even when artists disagree and/or it's to the artist's own detriment.

Re:Intentions (2, Interesting)

kiwimate (458274) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416489)

Well, it'd be pretty easy to verify, as their books are open to the public to examine. For reference, ASCAP claims 88 cents out of every dollar is distributed to artists.

Of course, they are a member run organization, so members could vote for a different board of directors, or even simply not join.

Re:Intentions (4, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415705)

Nothing more parasitic than a songwriter getting paid for the public performance of their work... shame on those people... shame.

With how much our culture and technology has been retarded in the name of preserving archaic quasi-governmental licensing systems...

I shed the same tears for the newspapers who lose revenue when jurisdictions no longer require legal notices to be posted in the classifieds. Won't you consider the jobs of the fax machine manufacturers? If signatures can be electronically signed, what will happen to the market for specialized devices designed to print images received over outdated phone lines?

Re:Intentions (5, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415751)

Tell you what. When I get a law that makes people keep paying me for work I did decades ago, maybe I'll be ok with songwriters getting the same privilege.

Re:Intentions (4, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415927)

Except that to earn a living then they would have to write a new song every day. Copyrights makes sense on a much more limited basis. An artist could literally spend years working on something without any benefit. It is not unreasonable to expect some term that allows them to benefit exclusively for their work. Otherwise there would be no incentive to create in the first place.

The problem is that the laws have changed to the point where it is almost infinite thanks to the lobbying of the big entertainment companies.

Re:Intentions (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416045)

Ah, but if they want to get paid, I do think they should continually have to write songs/perform/whatever other art they may produce.

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416089)

Of course they do. Very rarely is an artist going to make one work and retire. Of course, being that they have to keep producing for a living they continually run the risk of producing a flop.

If you think that being an artist is such a cozy easy life then why don't you do it?

Re:Intentions (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416157)

Who said anything about easy? I don't think artists should have it any easier than anyone else. If they want to retire, they should save for it like everyone else.

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416285)

I would say that probably only 1% of artists live a life even close to "easy". Go into Barnes and Noble and look at all the books in there. Stay away from the Stephen Kings and John Grishams but look at the thousands of other authors who may be much better authors but just don't get the right publicity or who can't afford to write full time.

There is a reason they say "starving artist" and not "starving accountant".

Re:Intentions (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416587)

Indeed, but Stephen King and John Grishaam living comfortably is not sufficient justification for other (superior) authors to get the same.

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416697)

I am not saying that every author needs to live like them. But they do need to live.

And those top grossing authors all have one thing in common - they put out bestsellers nearly every year. And for many of them they have multiple movie deals. They most likely spend more hours actually working than most 9-5ers.

Re:Intentions (3, Interesting)

dywolf (2673597) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416627)

they dont have it any easier, and copywright is not inehrently evil (though it seems to me you take the view they are).

in fact its quite a bit harder. you're probably like me, and work a normal day to day hourly wage job. we work, we get paid. its simple, easy, and garutneed. its very low risk, very low reward, but we make it up on volume of hours worked.

for the sake of discussion, ignoring the MAFIAA and how they have perferted the industry..... ....a music (or any other kind) artist by contrast is not normal day to day work. it is a high risk, high reward situation. the starving artist stereotype is true because that reflects the condition of the majority of "artists": people who have not been and will never be successful.at it. and most artists DO work continuously. so here we have people who work continuously, trying to be successful, trying to get something creative created AND sold to the public, AND get paid for it. a lot of time and effort with a extremely high chance of NOT succeeding. yet people still do it anyway....because its still a high reward comensurate with the high risk.

if you eliminate completely any protections or garuntees of that works profitability (ie, copywright) the reward drops significantly. the creator of a work does have an right to profit from it, for a -reasonable- period of time. this concept of a limited copywright serves both the personal need of the artist to get a reason reward for his creative effort if he is successful, and the public's cultural interest in having works not perpetually owned and locked down.

but that is the key point: the reasonable period of time. very few people take the stance that copywright is inherently evil, and most agree that a limited duration protection incentivizes artists and protects them, while still encouraging them to continue to produce, and serving the public interest. given that, the rest of negotiation of the meaning of "reasonable". and that is precisely where the MAFIAA comes in, and where they have perverted this topic (another perversionis the enslavement of artists, and using hollywood accounting to prevent having to pay them...but that's another topic). Clearly to most of us this perpetual lockdown that they have managed to bring about is UN-reasonable.

but equally unreasonable is the complete abolishment of copyright.
Turn the clock back to a reasonable duration.

Re:Intentions (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416071)

Also, I do favour a limited-term copyright. but by limited, I mean very limited. We're talking somewhere in the range of 7-10 years.

Re:Intentions (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416217)

Well I think some reasonable analysis needs to be done to figure out what is fair compensation. For example:

Let's say author A spends 3 years writing a novel while his wife supports him. In those 3 years, a college educated individual could have earned say $300K (just picking round numbers). Then let's assume that an average novel produces $30K per year in royalties for its author. That means he would need 10 years to break even. Now if his novel is a huge success he's likely to make back far more than that - which is only fair.

Of course, those are bullshit numbers and only one example. Some calculation could be done based on the last 10 years and updated every 10 years as the market changes. Maybe after the calculation is done the copyright term should be 30 years or maybe 5 but it definitely won't be life plus 30.

Re:Intentions (4, Interesting)

Dishevel (1105119) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416321)

You do not have to run numbers. Cut it to 15 years. If the people stop creating music and literature and movies then we can raise it. If they continue on or even start producing more we can try 10 years. The market will tell us exactly where copyright needs to be.

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416375)

I think it's more complicated than that, though. It could take years to see a shift in production and even then measuring it would be incredibly difficult. Even if people start producing more would you really want to cut the term? I don't think there is such a thing as too much creative production.

Re:Intentions (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416537)

Even if people start producing more would you really want to cut the term? I don't think there is such a thing as too much creative production.

I think what the GP means is that if we cut the term and we see more works produced (presumably because of the resulting greater freedom to create derivative works), then it might be worth a try to cut them further to see if we get even more. I'm not saying whether I agree with that proposition, just pointing out that he isn't aiming to reduce creative production.

Re:Intentions (2)

sconeu (64226) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416539)

We need copyright to extend after the death of the author!!!! Otherwise, what motiviation does Elvis Presley have to write new music?

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416579)

If you read any of my posts you would see that I think it is ridiculous that copyrights extend past death or even close to what they are now.

I will say one thing, though. I don't think copyright should end with the death of the artist if it is still within the regular term. So let's say an artist writes a great novel after years of his wife supporting him and dies the next day. I think it is reasonable that his wife receive the benefit of his work.

Re:Intentions (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416427)

While I generally agree with the results of your thought of a very limited term, I disagree with the way it was reached. There's no reason to expect a person to get back what they would have earned working otherwise. It's always a risk and always will be, creating art for profit. And I certainly don't support even the potential of a 30-year copyright. That's how works disappear into the æther.

Seldom does somebody become a novelist by quitting their day job to spend three years on it. To expect art to be one's sole source of income is unreasonable, though certainly not impossible.

Re:Intentions (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416341)

No. They don't need to write a new song every day, they need to PERFORM every day to get paid.

Re:Intentions (1)

omnichad (1198475) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416461)

Some people make a living just by writing songs. A lot of famous singers do not write their own songs. Both skills don't always go hand-in-hand except for the most talented people. That's why there are writer's royalties and performance royalties - both are separate for a good reason.

Re:Intentions (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416457)

Except that to earn a living then they would have to write a new song every day.

Hear that sound? (>appears to roll a booger between thumb and forefinger...)

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416471)

You have little sympathy for artists so I assume you don't read books or listen to music.

Re:Intentions (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416493)

It is not unreasonable to expect some term that allows them to benefit exclusively for their work. Otherwise there would be no incentive to create in the first place.

This is exactly right. In fact, there was no music, or singing, or recordings, or concerts of any sort before copyright was instituted and ASCAP was founded to protect the artist and give him the brand new incentive to create.

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416605)

Artists often had wealthy sponsors who fed and clothed them so they could enjoy the exclusive benefit of their works.

Re:Intentions (1)

shentino (1139071) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416571)

So what?

Maybe you shouldn't be spending effort that can easily be duplicated in the first place.

And besides that, if it's easily duplicated, the free market says it's in high supply and doesn't command a high price anyway.

Copyright is only for the benefit of those who care more about making money than they do about their work being produced.

A real artist cares more about art than money.

Re:Intentions (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415969)

I don't see why that's such a hard concept to grasp. Artists of all kinds are functionally are at the end of the day merely producers no different than producers of any other field. Why should an artist get paid every time someone views their work when a factory line worker only gets paid for the hours he's clocked in?

Could you imagine a world where factory workers were paid royalties every time someone drove a car, how fucking nuts would that be? But that's exactly what we have in the entertainment industry.

Re:Intentions (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416049)

If an artist worked for a company that paid him a fixed hourly/annual wage for the work he does - whether he completes anything or not - then I am sure he would be fine with not getting paid when his work is viewed.

There aren't many companies that pay artists that way, though. Not to mention that the artist would then be stuck producing only what the company wants which leads to the crap Hollywood produces.

If you don't have a compensation model for artists outside of corporations then you aren't going to get good creative artists.

Re:Intentions (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416223)

You do realize that you are essentially describing concerts, right? You know, where musicians actually make money as opposed to record deals which usually land the artists deeply in debt when they don't pan out?

you're defending the broken business model over the one that works.

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416305)

How does an artist get a paid concert gig they can live off of if they aren't already famous? They maybe spend years getting paid in food at a local bar.

And I hate the record labels. Definitely not defending them. You can have copyrights without labels.

Re:Intentions (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416573)

I don't know or care how they get a paid gig. It's really not my problem. I care more that they love and believe in what they're doing. Beyond that, success in the fiscal sense is just gravy.

I don't think anyone has a right to be successful because they want it. They gain the right to success by producing something people want, just like any other line of work. Sure, not everyone gets a big break, and sure, not everyone who gets one deserves it.

Re:Intentions (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416649)

People can't feed themselves off of love for what they do. You don't just write a book overnight and feed yourself the next day. You can go years struggling, working odd jobs just to eat, living in poverty, just for the chance that your book will get noticed and receive financial success. The people who can do these truly do love what they do and are willing to make that sacrifice. But even they would have to think twice if at the end they didn't get paid.

Equal pay for equal performance (4, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415883)

Nothing more parasitic than a songwriter getting paid for the public performance of their work... shame on those people... shame.

That's not the issue - the issue is that they should get the same payment regardless of the broadcast medium. Why should an artist get more (or less) money when I listen to their work over an EM transmission through the air as opposed to through a cable? This makes as much sense as basing the royalty rate on the transmission frequency of the radio station.

Re:Equal pay for equal performance (1)

dywolf (2673597) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416689)

Because it's not the artist that's getting the royalty most of the time.
First we eliminate the MAFIAA middleman...and then there is no secondly because that would go a long way to fixing the situation.

Imagine...

In a world with no MAFIAA to contrive to make the ARtist owe them, such that they never need to get paid...

And no MAFIAA to lobby to change/extend the copyrights...
And no MAFIAA to demand and lobby for ridiculous royalties owed them that the Artists will never see...
And Artists with a reasonable copyright protection, yet not exclusive and infinite...

Re:Intentions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416357)

Unfortunately, once the overhead is subtracted from the payments that ASCAP steals from people at gunpoint, there is very little left for the artists - something like negative 3 cents on the dollar, which they then hold the artists at gunpoint to collect.

Suck it ASCAP (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415365)

You're not the only one who can work loopholes in their favor.

No public interest? (4, Insightful)

redmid17 (1217076) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415385)

Have they heard most of the radio stations operating today? 99.9% of the content is demonstrably not for the public good.

Re:No public interest? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416155)

And yet people still listen to the crap when there are plenty of easy alternatives - including podcasts & personal music collections. I really don't get it. Sports and other live events are the only decent reasons to turn on the radio.

I really cringe at how often music is repeated on a music radio station, it's the same 20 songs repeated every hour or something like that.

Re:No public interest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416353)

I'm sort of hot and cold about NPR. That's occasionally worth listening to. Car Talk ftw.

Re:No public interest? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416673)

"the same 20 songs repeated every hour"

That's what I like about BobFM and JackFM. Or, did. The Bob station that I listened to on the way to work was bought by someone who thought that Texarkana needed yet another country station. But - no matter the genre, if they can't avoid repeating the same song more than once a day, the station is a FAILURE!!

There goes the last DJ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415395)

There goes your freedom of choice
There goes the last human voice
 
captcha: patriot

ah the ASCAP (5, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415445)

these are the choads that wanted royalties for your ringtones, but federal court smacked them down.

Past time to put this cartel parasites to the flames, treat them the same as the mafia.

Re:ah the ASCAP (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415469)

Oh, they just wanted to double dip on ringtones. Want to record and sell a whole 3 minute song? That'll be 9.6c per track. Want to clip and distribute a 10 second clip of that song as a ringtone? That's 25c. Written into law. They just wanted to get paid a second time for when some asshole's phone rings with a clip of a song you didn't want to hear anyway.

Re:ah the ASCAP (1)

msauve (701917) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416141)

I'm thinking of this Nilsson song [youtube.com] .

Re:ah the ASCAP (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415761)

Past time to put this cartel parasites to the flames, treat them the same as the mafia.

Perhaps Pandora has a RICO complaint ready...

So, it's okay for every other broadcaster... (5, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415451)

...to pay a pittance in royalties, and nothing-nada-zilch to the recording artists, but they get all bent out of shape when you do it over this newfangled "internet" thing, even if it's basically the same (Hit 90s Pop on Pandora sounds like every other Clear Channel station out there).

ASCAP is just looking to make sure they don't lose all that money they spent lobbying to get much higher rates for internet streaming than for airwave streaming.

Re: So, it's okay for every other broadcaster... (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416017)

the difference is that ASCAP gets a lot more per 'play' from radio stations than they get from streaming sites like Pandora which just isn't fair. Just because a 'play' on terrestrial radio could be head by half the population of Chicago and a streaming 'play' is usually heard by a single person should not be a reason that they shouldn't be paying the same per-play rates right?

Re: So, it's okay for every other broadcaster... (2)

hawguy (1600213) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416095)

the difference is that ASCAP gets a lot more per 'play' from radio stations than they get from streaming sites like Pandora which just isn't fair. Just because a 'play' on terrestrial radio could be head by half the population of Chicago and a streaming 'play' is usually heard by a single person should not be a reason that they shouldn't be paying the same per-play rates right?

If it makes you feel any better about it, no radio "play" will ever be heard by me - the only new music I hear is from Pandora or Spotify (while comutting, I either stream Pandora or a podcast from my phone to my bluetooth enabled car stereo). And I suspect that increasingly, fewer and fewer of the listeners that advertisers care about will be listening to over the air radio.

Re: So, it's okay for every other broadcaster... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416151)

If they could figure out a way to determine the number of active receivers and charge per receiver to radio stations, you can bet they would!

Re: So, it's okay for every other broadcaster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416391)

There is an entire industry built around figuring out how many actual listeners there are to a radio show or watching an over the air tv broadcast. They might not know EXACTLY, the way they do with the interwebs, but they have a pretty good idea.

Re: So, it's okay for every other broadcaster... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416529)

You've got it backwards... Pandora pays more, which is why they are buying the radio station, to lower their cost per play. ASCAP is pissed because they will lose money.

ASCAP has always been the mafia of public music performance, and their poor treatment of their artists is what caused musicians to start BMI.

A major selling point! (5, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415459)

if ASCAP is against it, it must be a good idea!

Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415485)

But the sort-of-famous musicians said that terrestrial radio paid more...

If buying a terrestrial radio station would mean that Pandora paid less, then they lied. Why would the musicians do such a thing?

Re:Wait (5, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415535)

Terrestrial radio is not required to pay musicians anything, and never has. Clear Channel has cut a deal to pay them something - no doubt very little, but just enough to keep them from lobbying to get legislation which would force CC to pay a fixed rate.

IIRC, internet radio pays something like 3-10x what terrestrial radio pays to the writers.

Re:Wait (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415733)

Terrestrial radio is not required to pay musicians anything, and never has

In fact, back in the day, it was the opposite - The artists' labels directed payola at the radio stations to get their vinyl played.

If a song was in heavy rotation on radio in a major market it would translate into increased sales.

Re:Wait (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416307)

Yeah, until the legislators realized that this was skewing the game, and made it illegal. So now Clear Channel has bought all the stations up and does it internally for fun and profit, but legally.

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416583)

It's the same these days. They've just added another middleman to limit liability. The label pays a guy to get radio play (most likely on the artist's tab), and that guy pays the radio station to play the song. OF course, the label has 'no idea' that this is going on *wink wink nudge nudge*

Re:Wait (2)

omnichad (1198475) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416547)

Terrestrial radio is required to pay musicians. It's copyrighted material and can't be broadcast without some sort of license agreement. This is usually brokered through an agency like ASCAP/BMI. Clear Channel may have a special agreement with one of those agencies, but they aren't the only ones required to pay.

If a small TV station airs a Ford commercial with copyrighted music in the background, they have to track how many times they air that commercial and pay royalties on that song. It's no different with TV, radio, or Internet. The royalties are just higher for Internet performances.

Re:Wait (1)

omnichad (1198475) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416561)

I will add that some record labels will pay a radio station to air their music. And theoretically they could give them a free pass to air it without a license. But the radio station STILL has to pay royalties on those songs, since their agreement with ASCAP/BMI/SESAC still requires it.

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416625)

Terrestrial radio is not required to pay musicians anything, and never has.

Err why is this nonsense modded up? It's not true.

Re:Wait (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415623)

Its more complicated than that, from what I understand as a casual observer of the situation. Believe what I write at your own risk, this info is complied from bits of different stories covering the matter, and I may have forgotten parts, or not integrated it correctly together.

The terrestrial radio rates are higher, but they are paid out to less artists. They pay based on sampling a station during a time period, if an artists song was played, they get paid. If they were not played during the sampling time, but heavily played every other time, they wouldn't get a dime.

Pandora and the similar internet based streamers pay a lower rate per song play, but keep track of each song they pay. So they pay the lower rate, but to more people. Thus they end up paying more money, but less to popular artists.

Re:Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416101)

Freaking Red Hot Chili Peppers must be richer than God by now, as frequently as my local ClearChannel station plays them.

Re:Wait (2)

omnichad (1198475) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416581)

That's definitely outdated. Radio stations have tracking systems to keep track of individual plays of songs now.

Regulatory capitalism (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415537)

You basically can't do anything in this country without stumbling into the web weaved by some bullshit lobbying group. I'm not a big Ayn Rand fan, but we really are a society of producers and moochers.

Correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415713)

Artist (Songwriter, performer, recording engineers and the like) = Producer

Person who wants the product of the above for free = Moocher

Re:Correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416109)

Corporation that takes the product of the above for a pittance while making bucketloads = Moocher

FTFY.

Asshat (5, Funny)

dramaley (20773) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415607)

Am i the only one who initially read the title as "Asshat Petitions FCC To Deny Pandora's Purchase of Radio Station"?

Re:Asshat (5, Funny)

halexists (2587109) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415791)

Did reading it differently change the meaning in any way?

Isn't the allegation irrelevant? (5, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415667)

"ASCAP also alleges that Pandora has no intention of operating KXMZ to serve the public interest, but is rather only interested in obtaining lower royalty rates"

Even if true (and I actually have little doubt that it is), does it even matter? If owning and operating a radio station gives them lower royalty rates, as long as they are actually carry out operating such a station, what difference does their incentive make?

Re:Isn't the allegation irrelevant? (4, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415973)

what difference does their incentive make?

When you use the public airwaves, you have to follow the government's rules. Always part of those rules is your service fulfilling some form of public interest. With TV, this means a certain number of hours of children programming, regular news programming, and some emergency news and emergency alert capabilities.

If you don't like the rules, you don't get to use the radio spectrum for free, and can purchase some spectrum from the FCC yourself, at very high rates like the cell phone companies do, and then you can broadcast, to whoever has your proprietary receiver, whatever you want...

Clear Channel got in trouble a while back because their highly automated operations meant no-one was around to answer the phone at a local radio station, so they didn't broadcast the alert the local police wanted to get out to the public, until many hours later. That's the kind of thing that gets broadcasters shut down. That's the kind of thing ASCAP is accusing Pandora *will* do in the future.

If Pandora does a good job running the radio station, more power to them. But they DO have many obligations to the public that they need to fulfill to be licensed by the FCC.

Wha...? (2)

jdharm (1667825) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415697)

ASCAP also alleges that Pandora has no intention of operating KXMZ to serve the public interest, but is rather only interested in obtaining lower royalty rates.

A company wants to operate a radio station to make money?! Holy sh*t, this MUST be stopped!

No, not you Clear Channel.

Didn't mean you Entercom.

Of course not you, CBS.

You're fine, Cumulus.

...

OK, so I just read the brief... (5, Informative)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415741)

The claim seems to hinge upon the assertion by ASCAP that if Pandora is able to acquire a brick-and-mortar airwave radio station, it will cause "significant economic harm on ASCAP." The fundamental flaw with that argument is that ASCAP is not entitled to have a bad business model protected by the laws or courts. Nor is ASCAP entitled to block anybody from making moves that give them an improved position from which to bargain.

The best comparison I can think of comes from the airline business.

This reminds me of American Airlines trying to sue Southwest out of Love Field in the early 1970s with claims that allowing Southwest to operate out of Love would hurt the newly-opened DFW International Airport (indeed, trying to force Southwest into the agreement between all the other airlines of the day to abandon Love and move to DFW, Southwest's service not having existed when the agreement was forged), and the much more recent United opposing Southwest's plans to go international from Houston Hobby on the grounds that it would adversely affect United's bottom line. Thankfully, the latter was basically shot down by the City of Houston, but the American Airlines fight against Southwest's operation at Love raged on for decades, with Congress getting involved more than once.

Re:OK, so I just read the brief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415967)

The fundamental flaw with that argument is that ASCAP is not entitled to have a bad business model protected by the laws or courts.

Sure they are. They have more money. That entitles them to whatever they want. You really think the U.S. Government has ever been to serve the peons over the mega-wealthy and the corporations? How cute...

Re:OK, so I just read the brief... (0)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416271)

Since when is Pandora anything but wealthy, paying $600 million just to get lower prices on songs? We're looking at a fight between two juggernauts here, not a little guy and a behemoth.

Re:OK, so I just read the brief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416377)

Since when is Pandora anything but wealthy

No clue. You seem to have invented that out of whole cloth as I made no mention of Pandora directly or indirectly. Either way, Pandora is chump change vs ASCAP in political clout and industry backing.

Re:OK, so I just read the brief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416485)

Thousand not Million.

Re:OK, so I just read the brief... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416609)

$600 million?

Pandora reached a deal to buy KXMZ from Connoisseur Media for $600,000 earlier this year

Fail much?

Disaster at the ASCAP offices (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44415783)

Doors jammed! Fire breaks out! Screams of ASCAP staffers and management, succumbing to the smoke and fire. No survivors.

This is the news story I want to read.

Not sure why ASCAP is the bad guy here. (1)

Rougement (975188) | 1 year,22 days | (#44415879)

Of all the people with their hands out, making money from music, the performers and writers are the ones creating the content and getting the shaft when it comes to getting paid for their work. Pandora and other streaming services are doing nothing except preserving this status quo.

Re:Not sure why ASCAP is the bad guy here. (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416105)

Why are you assuming any reasonable amount of this money ends up in the pockets of the performers and writers?

Re:Not sure why ASCAP is the bad guy here. (2)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416231)

I have nothing against the creators, but when one broadcast format gets preferential treatment over another, I don't see how that serves anyone.

Re:Not sure why ASCAP is the bad guy here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416235)

ASCAP doesn't represent the interests of the performers and writers.

Re:Not sure why ASCAP is the bad guy here. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416291)

ASCAP doesn't give a rat's ass about the performers - those are just monkeys making sounds. They're concerned about the big-hit, blockbuster songwriters almost exclusively. I say big-hit songwriters and not all songwriters because the pay scale for royalties is unfairly skewed to only those on the top of the radio playlists.

In a "perfect" world, everybody would get paid per play (or not at all, depending on your point of view), not based on a formula made up by the biggest names to only work in their favor. There needed to be a formula back when the accounting necessary to compensate everyone was too cumbersome; with computers and computerized play lists it isn't.

Re:Not sure why ASCAP is the bad guy here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416359)

Because ASCAP sucks ass, or to put it another way, ASCAP != performers and songwriters.

Your ignorance is excusable, because what you think ASCAP is -- and what they want you to think it is -- is a clearinghouse that helps artists and performers get paid for public perfomances (live or radio) of their works. And that may be what ASCAP and its brethren (BMI, SESAC) were back in the 1920s or 30s.

What ascap really is nowadays, is a conduit of funds to 1) ASCAP, and 2) Paul McCartney, Madonna, Lady Gaga. Maybe Hootie and the Blowfish on a good day.

If you were building ASCAP today, you'd map out the problems and solutions. You'd quickly come to the conclusion that all the heavy lifting will in gathering a good and large data stream of live and recorded perfomances of copyrighted works, and in developing an elegant method for the continual micropayments to the artists.

Both these problems (the dataset and the micropayment) are mostly solved. You or I could spend a week on github and come up with an alpha version. 3 months later and we have a fairly working solution.

So what is ASCAP's algorithm? Do they have an api where radio stations self-report playlists? Do they tie into shazamm to hear what songs people are querying? Do they say, if more than 3 people are querying the same live-sounding audio bit from the same gps location, and it sounds like "Harvest Moon" but faster, we drop $.007 into Neil Young's bucket, because it appears that some band is covering his tune?

No, they do none of these obvious methods. They (I am not kidding here, you can google this shit) lock a couple interns in a room for a week in NYC once a year. The interns listen to ONE godawful top-40 station and manually write down the playlist for a week.

And that playlist is meant to represent the TOTALITY of all radio and live music performance in the US of A.

But don't think that ASCAP are total slouches though. They do have lots of innovations. Cutting edge techniques. Problem is, all their innovation is on the revenue side. Pull a permit to install an elevator at your house, or file a d/b/a in your local newspaper as "Anonomous Coward's Caffe" and see how long it takes for an ASCAP representative to come knocking. In my last 2 businesses, the lag was about 30 days.

When I had a college radio show, this kind of shit killed me. When I owned a nightclub, this kind of shit REALLY killed me.

I have no problem with copyright (except to the degree it stifles innovation). I have no problem with artists getting paid for performances of their work. The problem is the reverse-robin-hood here, and the fact that ASCAP has absolutely zero incentive to change its practices.

tr07l (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416025)

that comprise continues in a on baby...don't moans and groans tangle of fatal ggodbye...she had The Cathedral 'You see, even Mr. Raymond's I don't want to Lite is straining Project returns recruitment, but the official GAY users of NetBSD

Republicans and Free Market (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44416595)

Soo...Ayn Rand (you know, the writer that Republicans just go nuts over) writes that the market should be free to do whatever it wants. Oh and when it comes to Health Care, Energy or just about any other industry, the Republicans claim that Government or Government institutions shouldn't infringe on business. But when an enterprise such as Pandora wants to purchase a Radio Station in a bid to expand its' marketshares, Republicans and Republican-led Quasi-Governmental institutions go nuts.

It's hilarious that ASCAP / RIAA / MPAA are archetypical organizations in Ayn Rand's novel.

The other way around? (1)

samjam (256347) | 1 year,22 days | (#44416623)

Maybe Pandora will "give" the radio station the money to buy a Pandora.
Pandora will of course have a long term licensing agreement with a new corp. Meta-Pandora and most of the money will get funnelled to Meta-Pandora.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>