Slashdot Mirror


Internet Radio's "Last Stand"

We've been discussing the plight of Internet radio for some time, as the Copyright Royalty Board imposed royalties that industry observers predicted would prove lethal to the nascent industry. We discussed Web radio's day of silence in protest, which won the industry a reprieve, and the futile efforts to find relief in Congress. Now it's looking as if the last act is indeed close. Death Metal Maniac sends along this Washington Post story with extensive quotes from Pandora CEO Tim Westergren, who said: "The moment we think this problem in Washington is not going to get solved, we have to pull the plug because all we're doing is wasting money... We're funded by venture capital. They're not going to chase a company whose business model has been broken." The article estimates that XM Satellite Radio will pay "about 1.6 cents per hour per listener when the new rates are fully adapted in 2010. By contrast, Web radio outlets will pay 2.91 cents per hour per listener." That's 70% of projected revenue for Pandora; smaller players estimate the hit at 100% to 300% of revenue.

6 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The day the music died by omeomi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I love Pandora. I listen to it almost constantly while I'm in front of my computer. I've found a ton of new bands that I love, and after discovering them, I've often purchased their music, either on CD or from iTunes. Shutting down Pandora would really suck.

  2. More arbitrary fees by blue+l0g1c · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What if I'm the owner of an internet radio station that plays only music that has become public domain through the consent of the owner or the expiration of copyrights?

    Or perhaps I only like to play songs by artists who sell their CD's for less than the industry standard. Say, $5 a CD. Will my fees be lessened?

    The artists really need to get involved. Laws like this are taking away more revenue than they are generating. For example, last.fm will recommend a group based on what I've been listening to. More often than not, I will listen to more of that group's music. If I like it, I find out if they are coming to a venue nearby. I go to the show and buy merchandise, because I know that's the best way to get money into the right hands.

    It's kind of what I imagine FM radio used to be, but we all know what happened to that.

  3. Pirate Radio?? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It is too bad that things like Pandora will go away.

    You know, it seems that we need to try to take lessons maybe from the Pirate Radio stations of the past and present that operate on the fringe, or in areas untouchable by the powers that be.

    Too bad we can't do some kind of distributable P2P type application, that would allow anyone to run streaming music/video into the ether....but, is untraceable as to origin. Some type of freenet type thing for streaming content. That way, anyone could set up a Pirate Internet Radio Station (PIRS ?).

    Is anything like this possible I wonder?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Pirate Radio?? by Das+Modell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, because at this moment it's not possible to create free music. We totally need a network for that sort of stuff, which will also somehow solve the problem of Internet radio dying.

    2. Re:Pirate Radio?? by morari · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Last time I checked, more avant-garde music was exactly what the world needed. What, were you looking forward to Britney Spears' comeback single or something?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  4. Retarding progress of science and art again by gessel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is just yet another example of how the current copyright regime is prima facia unconstitutional.

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

    Copyright is not a property right; copyright is an agreement between the public and authors & inventors creating a privilege of limited exclusive right as incentive for dissemination of ideas because otherwise authors & inventors have only the choice of keeping their inventions secret or sharing them that the recipient does what he or she will with the information without limitation, which is the natural right of the recipient.

    Any mechanism of securing exclusive right to the author or inventor must meet two tests to be constitutional:

    • the term of the exclusive right must be limited (that is it is not a property right),
    • the mechanism must demonstrably promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

    An attempt was made to test the absurdly long exclusive term against the "limited" requirement and that failed because any finite term is by definition limited.

    The test that must now be made is against the requirement that copyright laws "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." The burden of proof should be on demonstrating that the laws do promote the progress of science and the useful arts because copyright is a limitation on the rights of the public and therefore intrinsically a burden on society. In granting copyright society temporarily yields their natural right to a privilege offered authors & inventors, a privilege that may be revoked at any time.

    Current copyright laws do not pass the test of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts; they are a burden on innovation and have systematically retarded the progress of science and technology, strangling many significant innovations, once again with internet radio. Current copyright laws are therefore unconstitutional.