Note: If you want to contact your representative about H.R. 7084, you can visit this page.
Matt
· 1 year ago
I just hope this isnt attached to the Economic Bailout Bill becase that might ever see the light of day :p
Paul Glazowski
· 1 year ago
Heh, yeah. Maybe that's why it got pushed aside to today :-)
Angie A. Swartz
· 1 year ago
I'd love to see a bottoms up, "wipe the slate clean", unbiased analysis of how the internet music industry revenue model should work in lieu of what we see today which of course is driven by the deepest pockets. Mashable, have you reviewed the impact of this legislature on smaller companies like www.squatter.com which was started by musicmatch founder and streaming music pioneer Dennis Mudd after Musicmatch sold to Yahoo? I'm sure Dennis has an opinion and a great view on how all the dollars should flow. As for me, I just want music to continue to stream, it sure helps me write great blogposts =-) Thanks for writing great content!
Paul Glazowski
· 1 year ago
Yes, the legislation hits at other independent music streaming services, too. But Pandora is in essence one of the largest. And it is almost entirely a music streaming service, instead of a music streaming/social networking item. It's quite unique in that respect, and draws considerable attention for being so.
Zach
· 1 year ago
I really hope this passes. I know this isn't the kind of thing that most people will vote on - "You voted to kill Pandora! I like the pro-life guy better now!" - but it's an issue of fairness.
I'd call my rep, but I live in DC, so she can't do anything.
Paul Glazowski
· 1 year ago
Is your DC comment one with sarcasm involved, heh? I can't tell whether it is or not. :-)
M.Sputtering
· 1 year ago
Is there any way for us show our support against HR. 7084? If Pandora or any other webcasters can't pay paltry royalties, they really do deserve to pull the plug.
Considering that Pandora is the only outfit that seems to be protesting, it seems safe to deduce the problem is them. Why can't they just pass along the few cent cost to the consumer?
Oh right, because then they wouldn't be able to be so "convenient" and "user-friendly," ie. no ads, no business model, no future.
Zach
· 1 year ago
@ M.Sputtering - I hope that was sarcasm I was reading. If not, allow me to retort:
Explain to me how it's fair that Pandora pays 70% of its revenue in royalties to SoundExchange, while satellite radio pays ~9.5% and terrestrial radio pays nothing. Oh, and may I point out that some other outfits pay more? More as in 300-1200% of their revenue? Boosting the royalty payment from .0008 cents a song from .0017 cents a song - and that's retroactive to '06, I believe the year was - is going to hurt a site like Pandora which plays a lot of songs every day. So paltry isn't the word I'd use.
The fact is, internet radio is a new industry. It hasn't had a chance to get as established as terrestrial, and Pandora tried going all-subscription once (like satellite), which failed. Pandora isn't the only site that stands to be hurt by this, but it's probably the biggest. So the fact that we're hearing from them, well, it doesn't mean there aren't others behind them. (I guess I forgot to mention that the RIAA and SoundExchange support the bill. Yes, the same SoundExchange that was asking for more royalties. So they're not the only ones asking for this bill.)
Your argument reminds me a lot of an argument the head of SoundExchange made. Pandora is great, he said, but they need more ads. That's blaming the victim. The fact is, it's not their fault.
Paul Glazowski
· 1 year ago
Agreed, Zach. The fees are not paltry. And one might argue that Pandora should try to make more money from advertising to offset costs, but to flip it around and ensure that it pays less than half of revenue for royalties would require an immensely larger number of advertisements. Pandora plans to include more and perhaps even present some mid-stream (every 10 songs or so, for example), but it just wouldn't be enough. They would also have to increase listenership drastically, but that would only require that the company pay more royalties. It's pretty much inescapable, unless something magical occurs.
M.Sputtering
· 1 year ago
How is it the RIAA or SoundExchange's fault that Pandora can't make any money? Or that Pandora users aren't willing to pay jack squat for subscriptions?
Internet radio is not a "new industry," Zach -- it's more than ten years old. And it's as crappy a way to run a business today as it ever was, almost as crappy a business as terrestrial radio. Pandora needs to find a credible revenue stream instead of whining. It's getting tiresome to the extreme.
Man, when it comes to music and the net, the story never changes. Always people demanding something for nothing and calling grown-ups names and threatening piracy when they don't get it all for free. It's embarrassing.
Please guys, let Pandora die in peace. It's just a bad idea. It's over.
All Comments
I'd call my rep, but I live in DC, so she can't do anything.
Considering that Pandora is the only outfit that seems to be protesting, it seems safe to deduce the problem is them. Why can't they just pass along the few cent cost to the consumer?
Oh right, because then they wouldn't be able to be so "convenient" and "user-friendly," ie. no ads, no business model, no future.
I hope that was sarcasm I was reading. If not, allow me to retort:
Explain to me how it's fair that Pandora pays 70% of its revenue in royalties to SoundExchange, while satellite radio pays ~9.5% and terrestrial radio pays nothing. Oh, and may I point out that some other outfits pay more? More as in 300-1200% of their revenue? Boosting the royalty payment from .0008 cents a song from .0017 cents a song - and that's retroactive to '06, I believe the year was - is going to hurt a site like Pandora which plays a lot of songs every day. So paltry isn't the word I'd use.
The fact is, internet radio is a new industry. It hasn't had a chance to get as established as terrestrial, and Pandora tried going all-subscription once (like satellite), which failed. Pandora isn't the only site that stands to be hurt by this, but it's probably the biggest. So the fact that we're hearing from them, well, it doesn't mean there aren't others behind them. (I guess I forgot to mention that the RIAA and SoundExchange support the bill. Yes, the same SoundExchange that was asking for more royalties. So they're not the only ones asking for this bill.)
Your argument reminds me a lot of an argument the head of SoundExchange made. Pandora is great, he said, but they need more ads. That's blaming the victim. The fact is, it's not their fault.
Internet radio is not a "new industry," Zach -- it's more than ten years old. And it's as crappy a way to run a business today as it ever was, almost as crappy a business as terrestrial radio. Pandora needs to find a credible revenue stream instead of whining. It's getting tiresome to the extreme.
Man, when it comes to music and the net, the story never changes. Always people demanding something for nothing and calling grown-ups names and threatening piracy when they don't get it all for free. It's embarrassing.
Please guys, let Pandora die in peace. It's just a bad idea. It's over.