Tag: pandora

Artists Rights Watch – Sunday Feb 3, 2013

Grab the coffee!

Recent Posts:
* Over 50 Major Brands Supporting Music Piracy, It’s Big Business!
* @pepsi and @beyonce @superbowl Ads Supporting Pirate Lyrics Site That Exploits Adele and Skyfall
* Derek Khanna is Wrong: Copyleft Mystery Man’s Misleading Memo Creates its Own Myths…
* It’s Not Whack A Mole if You Own the Mole: New York Times Coverage of Brand Sponsored Piracy
* Zero Dark Thirty, Best Picture Academy Award Nominee, Exploited by AT&T, Verizon, MetroPCS, Nissan, H&R Block, British Airways, Progresso, and more…
* #StopArtistExploitation – Tweet Daily for Artists Rights!
* Underreporting and No Accountability: Another Reason Streaming Royalties are So Small
* Internet Pay To Play: Payola’s Revenge – Guest Post by Robert Rial of Bakelite78

From Around The Web

LA WEEKLY:
* YouTube Stars Fight Back

“I woke up today hoping to make a video, but I went into a call with Machinima this evening and they said that my contract is completely enforceable. I can’t get out of it,” Vacas tells the camera. “They said I am with them for the rest of my life — that I am with them forever.

“If I’m locked down to Machinima for the rest of my life and I’ve got no freedom, then I don’t want to make videos anymore,” he says quietly.

The screen fades to black.

NEW YORK TIMES:
* Playing Whac-a-Mole With Piracy Sites
* As Music Streaming Grows, Royalties Slow to a Trickle

Spotify, Pandora and others like them pay fractions of a cent to record companies and publishers each time a song is played, some portion of which goes to performers and songwriters as royalties. Unlike the royalties from a sale, these payments accrue every time a listener clicks on a song, year after year.

The question dogging the music industry is whether these micropayments can add up to anything substantial.

“No artist will be able to survive to be professionals except those who have a significant live business, and that’s very few,” said Hartwig Masuch, chief executive of BMG Rights Management.

ADLAND:
* Online pirating: sponsored by many brands, and now, one government.

BUSINESS INSIDER:
* How Jobs In The Media Industry Got Demolished In The Last 10 Years [Charts]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has put together a presentation on the recent history and direction of media jobs. It’s not pretty.

THE LEFT ROOM:
* Piracy, Free Books, etc

DIGITAL BOOK WORLD:
* Does Piracy Hurt Digital Content Sales? Yes

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY:
* Photographers find support in House of Lords in copyright fight

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:
* Ray Charles’ Children Win Lawsuit Over Song Rights Termination

BLABBERMOUTH:
* TOOL Frontman Sounds Off On Illegal Downloading, Music Industry And Digital Distribution

“There’s a disconnect between people not buying music and not understanding why [bands] go away. There are people who are like monkeys in a cage just hitting the coke button. They don’t really get that for [musicians and artists] to do these things, they have to fund them. They have to have something to pay the rent.”

VOX INDIE:
* New Spotlight on Piracy Profitmongers

THE ILLUSION OF MORE:
* Think File Sharing is Sticking it to The Man? Really?
* On Being a Luddite

COPYRIGHT AND TECHNOLOGY:
* Yes, Piracy Does Cause Economic Harm

Decisions about business and policy have to be made based on the best information we have available. After a certain point, simply poking holes in studies — particularly those whose results you don’t happen to like — isn’t sufficient.

It may indeed, as the GAO suggested, be impossible to measure the economic effects of piracy with a large amount of accuracy. But if dozens of researchers have tried, all using different methodologies, then their conclusions in the aggregate are the best we’re going to do. Put another way, it will henceforth be very difficult to dislodge Smith and Telang’s conclusion that piracy does economic harm to content creators.

RAPIDTV NEWS:
* LATAM pay-TV operators unite against piracy

CIOL:
* Kamal Haasan fans help curb Vishwaroopam online piracy

BILLBOARD:
* Worldwide Independent Network Announces ‘Independent Manifesto’
* Blink-182’s Mark Hoppus Talks Piracy, Pros and Cons of Digital at MIDEM

“I believe that artists should be paid for their creativity. There’s no other industry where people can come in and take what you create for free and give it away for free and that’s acceptable.”

MUSIC ALLEY:
* U2 manager Paul McGuinness: ‘I don’t want to engage in Google-bashing, but…’
* Irving Azoff sticks it to Pandora and StubHub
* Midem 2013: How the Music Industry Manages Innovation

“We are the last fortress against this YouTube situation, and we are fighting hard on that,” he said. “The problem is the fair price, getting statements and getting all the business plans… The biggest problem to solve the YouTube deal is they want a non-disclosure deal, and we are not allowed by Germany law to do with any partners a non-disclosure [deal]. We have to do it open.”

DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
* Pandora Executives Cash Another $3 Million In January…
* Hey Advertisers: You Might Want to Ask VEVO for a Refund…

HYPEBOT:
* Myspace Allegedly Hosting Unlicensed Indie Music, Merlin Prepares Legal Response
* The Most Honest Interview About the Music Industry Ever, Featuring Jacke Conte of Pomplamoose

“YouTube seemed like a really incredible opportunity, but it’s not repeatable. I don’t know how to make it in the music industry. I don’t think anybody really knows how, and I’m unable to repeat what happened to Pomplamoose.”

PLAGIARISM TODAY:
* 4 New-ish Pro-Copyright Sites To Read

THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY:
* Laws of Creation: An Examination of Intellectual Property Rights

INSTITUTE FOR POLICY INNOVATION:
* Copyright and Innovation? No. Copyright IS innovation.

YAHOO:
* New Order’s Peter Hook: Musicians, Journalists Only People Who Don’t Get Paid for Work

Hook expressed astonishment that in the internet economy, consumers act aggrieved if musicians ask to be compensated for their music or if reporters object to having their stories re-purposed by other news organizations without getting credit or cash.

“If you love and respect music, you should pay for it,” Hook said.

COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE:
* Creators and Consumers Should Cut the Strings

TORRENT FREAK:
* Russia Wants To Fine Websites For Poor Copyright Takedowns
* University of Illinois Disconnects Pirating Students, Staffer Asked To Leave
* Pirate Bay Founder Could Be Prosecuted For Hacking “Within a Month”

VARIETY:
* Music retail giant puts tunes online (Amoeba Archives Project)

THE SCOTSMAN:
* New look at copyright key to digital boom

THE CALGARY HERALD:
* Your content is Freely Shared; their Profit is Closely Held

There’s enormous potential in this ‘Your Content, Their Profit’ crowd-sourcing business model, and it’s turned companies like YouTube, Google and Twitter into multi-billion-dollar corporations.

Whether you realize it not, what you post online (your words, your pictures, your pictures of other people, you name it) becomes someone else’s revenue generating opportunity as soon as you post it.

Top social networking sites build into their user agreements and conditions of use the automatic rights to profit from the content that’s posted (or stored or indexed).

JOHN BOSTOCK @ TED CONVERSATIONS:
* Meet the new Boss, Worse than the Old Boss

THE MAUI NEWS:
* Creators v. Consumers : Restating the Obvious

SAD RED EARTH:
* Aaron Swartz and “Hactivision”

by Trichordist Editor

Here it comes again!

Music Technology Policy

Not surprisingly, Tim Westergren is rallying the troops at the Consumer Electronics Show–the locus of those just like him who want to enrich themselves from commoditizing music.   Remember, Westergren is the founder and public face of Pandora–and has been cashing in to the tune of $1,000,000 a month as he sells off his founders stock in the public markets.

So now the LA Times is reporting that Westergren is offering the Web 2.0 version of “tour support”:

[Westergren] talked about Internet radio as a means to generate income for performing artists (who don’t get paid at all by over-the-air stations) and insights. In particular, he touted Pandora’s ability to help artists figure out where to tour and promote their live shows to a receptive audience.

The key, Westergren said, is in the feedback Pandora users give on songs. The site allows listeners to give a thumbs up to songs they’d…

View original post 816 more words

by thetrichordist

Or Pandora Could Add Another Minute Of Advertising And Raise Their Revenue 50%

Silicon Valley tech gurus  love to tell musicians that they “need new business models.”  This is kind of funny when you consider that most of these folks work for companies that have never shown a profit. Never!  Whereas my web-enabled businesses Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven  (like many bands) have been profitable for decades.  So can someone please tell mewhy we’re supposed to  listen to these serial failures with their snake oil schemes?

I think it’s high time that artists turn the tables.  We should tell these folks how to run their businesses for a change.  Quit whining and bootstrap it! Just like we had to when we were starting our bands.  Sell T-shirts or something!

For instance here’s how Pandora can increase their revenue 50%:

1. Pandora plays one minute of commercials per hour.  Satellite radio plays about thirteen minutes an hour. Pandora could easily double the number of ads and still have a very pleasant consumer experience.

2. Pandora made approximately $86 million from advertising on total revenues of $101 million last quarter.  Let’s say they double the amount of advertising and they only generate another 65 million from doubling ads.  This gives them a minimum of $151 million in revenue. And that is an increase of 50%.

But seriously folks, have investors considered that the so-called Internet Radio Fairness act could take years to pass?  And then once it passes it requires the President to appoint new judges that would have to be approved by the Senate.  Does that sound like a quick fix to you folks?  But that’s not all . These new judges would then have to convene new hearings on the royalty rates under the new below fair market value standards.    This would take years.

On the other hand Pandora could start increasing revenue tomorrow by simply airing more ads.  This is what most main street businesses do.  They need more revenue?  They generate more revenue.  They don’t run to the federal government to force their suppliers to lower their prices!  Adapt or die Pandora!

Of course we know the IRFA is about more than royalty rates.  This is about agency capture.  It’s about replacing current judges with judges that are more friendly to the the Tech and Broadcast industry’s agenda.  It’s about not allowing artists and their representatives to speak out when mega-broadcasters propose direct licensing deals that benefit labels at the expense of artists.   We artists could be prosecuted under The Sherman Act if this bill passes!

Let’s just hope that congress sees this for what it is: Crony Capitalism.

by Dr. David C Lowery

Zoë Keating’s Request for Internet Transparency met w/ usual Hypocrisy

We’ve been following Zoë Keating’s blog for a while. Zoë represents (figuratively, not literally) a new generation of musicians whose careers have only really existed in the post-internet, pro-piracy environment. As such, the perspective of these artists who have little experience in the world prior to optional payment and virtually no artist control over the distribution of their work is somewhat different from those who have inhabited both environments.

We celebrate the Zoë Keatings of the world for their undying tenacity in their efforts to navigate the current music industry without having had the benefit of the pre-piracy era. Zoë’s made a few excellent observations and suggestions. One recent post has been to ponder the creation of a new artists rights coalition to represent the needs of contemporary indie and DIY artists. Another post has been soul searching on what might be the fair way to set appropriate royalty rates across the various terrestrial, satellite and internet streaming radio platforms.

But it is one of Zoë’s most recent posts which has really caught our attention, as Zoë has been “slashdotted” just for asking for transparency and data sharing from the internet companies profiting from the artists work.

In the case of a service like Pandora, when someone has taken the time to create a station around my music or given my songs a “thumbs up”… I’d rather know where in the world those particular listeners are than be paid the $0.0011 per play that is currently required by law. That was my point.

Now, we don’t think this should have to be a choice, and we think Zoë has an excellent point, especially given that the Declaration Of Internet Freedom specifically states transparency as one if it’s principles.

Declaration of Internet Freedom

We stand for a free and open Internet.

We support transparent and participatory processes for making Internet policy and the establishment of five basic principles:

Expression: Don’t censor the Internet.

Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.

Openness: Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate.

Innovation: Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don’t block new technologies, and don’t punish innovators for their users’ actions.

Privacy: Protect privacy and defend everyone’s ability to control how their data and devices are used.

As with many things we’ve seen from the tech sector, there always seems to be selective reasoning when it comes to them actually adhering to their own principles. This from the same people who want permissionless innovation, up and until, you are not asking them for permission as Google is illustrating with Doogle.

Of course the double standard and irrationality of the freehadist hive mind doesn’t stop there. Among the comments posted, this one is indicative of the faulty logic and thinking expressed by so many of the anti-artist maximalists.

“She got money, I got music. There was no agreement to get my data. 0% is hers.”

The point that should be emphasized is that there was no agreement period. Pandora gets a compulsory license. It gets the benefit of a “one-stop shop” for all sound recordings so long as it pays the rates, no questions asked. Congress took away from Zoe Keating the choice to make that agreement. So it’s also perfectly valid to say that Pandora should also turn over some data to artists in exchange for that – especially if the consumer is (and should be) given the choice to opt-in.

We are pro-choice and respect consent, and we believe that the internet and tech community should also as well.

by Trichordist Editor

The Internet Radio Fairness Act’s Attack on Free Speech

In case you missed it: yesterday, the Future of Music Coalition held its annual summit, a full day’s worth of varied speakers and varied topics. The primary topic was the Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA) — Pandora’s Tim Westergren led off the summit with a “conversation panel” designed to drum up support for the bill. Senator Ron Wyden, sponsor of the Senate’s version of the bill, had the honor of keynoting the event, and his remarks centered around the legislation.

The Trichordist’s own David Lowery participated on a panel in between the two devoted to the bill. He was joined by General Counsel of the American Federation of Musicians Patricia Polach, SoundExchange General Counsel Colin Rushing, Consumer Electronics Association lobbyist Michael Petricone, and AccuRadio founder Kurt Hanson.

Lowery had earlier challenged Westergren on the free speech implications of Section 5 of IRFA. Westergren deflected: “I’m not going to get into a back and forth over legislative language.”

During the panel discussion, Lowery focused again on the chilling effect that Section 5 would pose to artists and artist organizations. The AFM’s Polach echoed his concerns.

When Senator Wyden took the podium, he attempted to address these concerns. With his voice raised, he conceded that “If the consensus in the legal community is that this restricts the First Amendment, it will be a very short-lived provision.” Techdirt’s Mike Masnick jumped to Wyden’s defense:

As we noted in our prior post, IRFA’s chilling effect on free speech is not a bizarre interpretation.

Satellite radio provider Sirius XM is currently suing SoundExchange and the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) primarily because of blog posts expressing their opinion on direct licenses pursued by Sirius. It is seeking monetary damages, a permanent injunction, the dissolution of SoundExchange, and the invalidation of all copyrights licensed by SoundExchange — copyrights involving over 70,000 performers — because these organizations representing artists engaged in speech that Sirius disagrees with.

These groups have explicitly raised the First Amendment in defense. As A2IM argues in its memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss, filed last June, “a trade association’s mere recitation of facts and its opinion on an issue or standard cannot constitute an antitrust violation.”

Instead, such a recitation is protected free speech. … Sirius pleads nothing more than just such protected expressions of A2IM opinion.

Artists and artist advocates should not need to run things by their lawyer whenever they want to communicate to other artists their thoughts and opinions on deals offered by Sirius, Clear Channel, or any other business that relies on their music.

We don’t have to wonder if there is a free speech concern with Section 5 of IRFA — there is. We don’t have to guess if corporations will sue artist organizations for speaking up — they already are.

Section 5 would only codify and set in stone this suppresion of dissent.

That IRFA’s own authors, self-described defenders of the First Amendment, weren’t aware of the definite chilling effect of the bill until yesterday only reinforces the idea that Congressional tampering with artists’ royalties is not yet ready for prime time.

by Trichordist

Weekly Recap and News Sunday Nov 11, 2012

Grab the coffee!

Recent Posts:
* Madison Avenue and Media Piracy, Are Online Ad Networks the Birth of SkyNet?
* Bad News, Good News, Bad News. Internet Radio “Fairness” Act Sponsor and Conservative UT Congressman Chaffetz Taunts Musicians; Admits to Belief in Evolution; Urges Government Interference In Markets.
* Muzzling Free Speech By Artists: IRFA Section 5 Analysis
* Lobbyist For CCIA Makes All Kinds of Wild Claims About Copyright Management Organizations. BMI ASCAP SOCAN SAMI Included in Charges of Corruption.

From Around The Web:

Copyhype:
– Friday’s End Notes 11/09/12 (Essential Weekly Reading)

Dan Ariely
– How to Stop Illegal Downloads
“Before it was my book being illegally downloaded, I was more on the “Information wants to be free” end of the spectrum. The sudden, though predictable, shift in my feelings when I found my own work being downloaded for free was a jarring experience.”

Digital Music News
– Goldman Sachs Is About to Invest $100 Million In Spotify…
– Dear Pandora, You Totally Suck. Signed, Songwriters…
– Pandora Is Now Suing ASCAP to Lower Songwriter Royalties…

TechCrunch:
– Spotify Is Having A Good 2012: Revenues Could Reach $500M As It Expands The Digital Music Market

Billboard:
– Songwriters Are Left Out of Pandora’s Royalty Plan: Guest Post by Downtown Music’s Justin Kalifowitz

The Hill:
– NAACP blasts Pandora-backed Internet royalty bill

The New York Times:
– A Clash Across Europe Over the Value of a Click

The Precursor Blog:
– Google’s Top Ten Anti-Privacy Quotes — Part 3 In Google’s Own Words Series
“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about” – Google Chairman Eric Schmidt 10-1-10 per the Atlantic

Torrent Freak:
– Supreme Court Rejects Hearing For Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde
– RapidShare Limits Public Download Traffic to Drive Away Pirates
– “Six-Strikes” BitTorrent Crackdown May Target Private Trackers

Columbia Journalism Review:
– Audit Notes: digital ads, margins of error, freehadists – French publishing’s online revenues make the Americans look good

Music Tech Policy:
– IRFA and the Future of Music Policy Summit: Why Would FOMC Miss An Opportunity to Defend Artist Rights?
– Stretching the Possibilities of Offensiveness, Pandora Demonstrates How to be Ugly at Scale

The Washington Examiner:
– Report: Google and Facebook competing for an Obama cabinet slot

Digital Trends:
– Sorry, Internet, SOPA had zero effect on election day results
“Of the 24 House Members up for reelection who co-sponsored or otherwise supported the highly contentious anti-piracy legislation, all but three won reelection on Tuesday. This includes Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, of Texas, SOPA’s author and chief co-sponsor who became the Internet’s Enemy No. 1”

ChinaDaily:
– Free Online Music in China Coming to An End?

by trichordist

Weekly Recap Sunday October 28, 2012

Grab the coffee!

Recent Posts:
* Is Tim Westergren (Pandora) Really Just A Beard For Clear Channel?
* “We’re Gonna Boycott Your Band” And Other Empty Freehadist Threats- 6 Months Of Campaigning Against Piracy.
* Pittsburg Post-Gazette TV Critic Instructs Readers In How To Get Pirated Copies Of DVD’s…and Fund Terrorism?
* UPDATE : Pittsburg Post-Gazette Published Piracy Link
* Pandora Comes Out Of The Closet; Confirms Clear Channel and Pandora “More Than Just Friends’

From Around The Web…

COPYHYPE:
* Essential Reading of the Week as Compiled by Terry Hart at Copyhype.

HUFFINGTON POST:
* John Mellencamp Talks Internet Piracy

CNET:
* Commentary on John Mellencamp Talks Internet Piracy

BBC:
* More piracy sites faced with blocking as BPI contacts UK ISPs
“since the April court order, The Pirate Bay has lost three quarters of its visitors.”

SPIEGEL ONLINE:
* Voters Growing Disillusioned with Germany’s Pirate Party

THE CYNICAL MUSICIAN:
* Got Change?

TORRENT FREAK:
* TV Shack Admin Richard O’Dwyer “Almost Certain” To Be Extradited To US
* Torrent Site Webhost Ordered to Pay “Piracy” Damages
* Pirate Bay Censored in Ireland After Mysterious Court Order (Updated)

DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
* Taylor Swift’s Label: Streaming “Doesn’t Make Sense to a Small Record Company…”
* It Was 2012. And Streaming Hadn’t Yet Gone Mainstream…

HYPEBOT:
* Metallica Prepping First Independent Release

MUSIC TECH POLICY:
* Friends Don’t Let Friends Get IRFAd: Five Simple Facts About the “Internet Radio Fairness Act”
* Google and Clear Channel Send Their Shills Out for IRFA Lobby Fest
* Constitutional Opportunism Continues with IRFA: Copyright Royalty Judges are Properly Appointed

by trichordist

Weekly Recap Sunday October 21, 2012 aka Pandorathon, On and On…

Grab the Coffee!

Recent Posts, aka The Pandorathon:
* Sign the @musiciansunion (AFM) Letter: Friends don’t let friends get IRFA’d!
* If Pandora wants Terrestial Radio Royalty Rates, Act Like It – Problem Solved!
* Tim Westergren’s Sophomore Slump. New Bill Sucks, Old Radio Fairness Bill Was Way Better.
* Screw You Too, Pandora. Part I. Pandora The Union Buster! Jail time for Collective Bargaining?
* Four Simple Reasons Why the Pandora Radio Act Screws Musicians (EZ Reader)
* Screw You Too, Pandora. Part II: Did Pandora Lie During Their IPO? Or are they just plain old greedy.
* IRFA Analysis: Section 2
* Screw you too, Pandora™ PT III. Kangaroo Court: Pandora Bill Requires Firing of Copyright Judges and Replacement with Fake Judges.
* Screw You Too Pandora! Pt IV. Why Conservatives and Libertarians Should Be Appalled By The IRFA Bill.
* Radio Fairness? Sirius/XM Paid My Band $2,213 Pandora Paid $91

And, in case you missed it:
* Amex must really like advertising on #1 copyright infringing and illegal porn linking site Filestube
* Mythbusting : Music Is Too Expensive!?
* Remembering Steve Jobs

From Around The Web.

C|NET:
* Breaking Bad’s Bryan Cranston on Piracy and TV’s golden age

SPIN:
* Downloaders Beware: Copyright Alert System Arises as Torrent Sites Enter the Cloud

COPYHYPE:
* Friday’s End Notes Oct 19, 2012

VOXINDIE:
* Blogspot.com, a Bridge to Piracy?
* Why Doesn’t YouTube Address the Real Content ID Fail?

ETHICAL FAN:
* Calling All Lawyers! uTorrent Increases “Privacy” and Counters Mass-Monitoring of Downloads

COPYLIKE via MEMEGENERATOR:
* Scumbag Steve – Downloads Music for free Buys $300 headphones
* Join Copylike on Facebook

THE CYNICAL MUSICIAN:
* If a Tree Falls in the Forest and Nobody Hears It…

TORRENTFREAK:
* Microsoft Will Ban Halo 4 Pirates from XBOX Live
* Maybe he should have thought twice? Pirate Bay Founder in Jail.

DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
* Trent Reznor returns to Major Label System

HYPEBOT:
* SXSW announces first 40 Panels for 2013

MUSIC TECH POLICY
* Betting the Company: The Internet Radio Fairness Act has little to do with the Internet, Radio or Fairness
* An Overlooked Brookings Institute Study on Fighting Piracy at the Corporate Level

AFM:
* Check out the American Federation of Musicians on Facebook

CREATIVE AMERICA:
* Petition for an Internet The Works for Everyone

by trichordist

Four Simple Reasons Why the Pandora Radio Act Screws Musicians (EZ Reader)

The intentionally misnamed “Internet Radio Fairness Act” (IFRA) should actually be called the “Pandora Greed Screwing Musicians Bail Out Act” and here’s four simple reasons that everyone can understand why the rate setting in this bill, is in fact UnFair.

1) Pandora negotiated their royalty rate based on functionality.  Other formats of digital radio have different functionality, so they pay different rates.  If Pandora wants to pay a rate like another format of digital radio, then Pandora should function like that format.  They don’t. That’s why Pandora’s rates were fairly negotiated after carefully determining how Pandora actually functions.  As Westergren said in 2009–“The royalty crisis is over!”  Until it’s not, apparently.

2) Other online content services that are dependent upon music for their primary source of revenue such as Spotify and Itunes distribute 70% of their gross keeping a 30% margin for all operating costs. Pandora is complaining about paying only 50% of gross revenues and Tim Westergren wants to pay even less so that he can show Wall Street analysts that Pandora can make more profit.   Not to mention propping up the price of his own Pandora stock for a little bit longer (that he’s selling for about $1 million a month.)

3) It seems strange that Pandora could sell investors on the profitability of its business model during it’s IPO but now seems to think that model doesn’t work. Is this incompetence, or a deliberately dishonest and greedy transfer of wealth in a Wall Street Style bail out by asking Congress to change the law and move the goal posts? A two year old could figure out this is UnFair. Did Pandora think they could make a go of their business at the current rates during the IPO when they cashed out, or have they abandoned that idea now?

4) Pandora uses recordings on a government-mandated compulsory license which means artists have no ability to remove their music from Pandora even if they feel the rates are unfair. (This is like the compulsory license and statutory rate for songs–aka, “prison”.)  Again, both Spotify and Itunes allow artists to remove their music from those services if they so chose. Pandora will force artists into a deal they can not opt out of, this is UnFair.
You May Also Like More Info about PANDORA:

Screw You Too, Pandora. Part I. Pandora The Union Buster! Jail time for Collective Bargaining?

Tim Westergren’s Sophomore Slump. New Bill Sucks, Old Radio Fairness Bill Was Way Better.

by trichordist