Copyright Board Lawyer Responds On Pandora's End

mattnyc99 writes "A month ago we talked about the impending death of streaming music site Pandora thanks to a very backwards fight over royalties. PopMech follows up with an article that, besides noting how insane it is that Pandora has to pay record labels for the bad songs that users skip, also gets the (three-member) Copyright Royalty Board to try and defend itself about why the government is determining royalty rates for the music industry. Quoting: 'It was uninvited,' says Richard Strasser, senior attorney for the Copyright Royalty Board. 'I don't think anybody was jumping up and down with joy in the government that they have this responsibility, but the former systems just weren't working out.'" No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.

Comments

Well, hell

[Creepy Crawler]

Why doest Pandora just strike up with indie studios and go mono e mono with musicians for play rights?

And if Congress is forcing internet radio companies to pay to some RIAA-hole, countersue them under RICO. After all, they're pooling their money. And isnt payola illegal?

Re:Well, hell

[Firehed]

Yes, payola is illegal. It's also standard operating procedure, and nobody gives a damn that it happens (or nobody in a position to do anything, at least).

And let's face it - Pandora wouldn't be nearly as successful as it has been if it could only play indie music. Say what you want about quality, but there's a tremendously larger audience for mainstream music, pretty much by definition (now technically mainstream and indie aren't mutually exclusive, but it tends to work out that way more often than not).

Re:Well, hell

[jedidiah]

If Pandora used their algorithms point you to indie music
that you are likely to want to buy, they could very well
completely sabotage the RIAA entirely.

An indie-centric version of Pandora would be quite cool actually...

Pity

[Stanistani]

I have been listening to Pandora, discovering new artists, and had begun to buy music again (most of my music collection is CDs bought in the Eighties). Guess I'll just go back to listening to my 'oldies' - I can't be bothered to keep fighting the music industry to accept my money.

Re:Pity

[Man On Pink Corner]

I have been listening to Pandora, discovering new artists, and had begun to buy music again

Please consider checking RIAA Radar when buying music that you find through Pandora. When you pay for content published on RIAA labels, you are literally paying people to fight against your interests as a music fan.

If people would simply stop rewarding stupidity, the RIAA would melt like the penny-dreadful movie villains they are.

Re:Pity

[Darkness404]

That is assuming that you are buying new music. if you buy used CDs you aren't supporting the RIAA at all, while still being "legal".

Re:Pity

[Firehed]

Most people's options suck. The majority of music I like is under an RIAA label, and that's true for almost everyone. Either I steal it (bad), pay for it and support the RIAA (definitely bad) even though I'm _slightly_ supporting the artist (definitely good), or I go without it entirely (bad).

Unfortunately, I'm not giving up the music. So I either have to steal it (and risk getting sued) or have to support the very organization that spends all of its time working against me and itself. Which would you suggest? I've done both, and don't really care for either option. If pirating it and donating directly to the artist was an option I'd do it, but that's never the case for RIAA-signed artists.

Re:Why internet radio is hit harder

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason is regular people can be broadcasters on the internet. This is not very appealing to large commercial cartels. They want to make royalties not just on the content but also the the broadcasting hardware. It ain't cheap or easy to start an XM radio or regular O-T-A radio station. The commercial interests want their cut â" so they seek to drive any one out of business who is doing internet radio.

Re:Why internet radio is hit harder

[QRDeNameland]

No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.

That's an easy one. Cause people use the internet to steal copyrighted material.

People can't "steal copyrighted material" from satellite and broadcast?

I think I've got a better explanation. Broadcast and satellite are channels that require very high initial investment, thus locking out small competitors. Internet radio can be set up by anyone, and thus is harder for an industry cartel to control.

My Troll Post

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA Monthly Ledger
CD Sales....$10,000,000
Internet Royalties....$3,000,000
Perceived Internet Theft......$3,200,000
Lawyer Bill......$7,000,000
Customer Loyalty and Fair Use....Priceless

Another industry gets offshored

[computersareevil]

Won't this just mean that there won't be any U.S. Internet radio stations? They'll either fold up or move off-shore. They won't be able to conduct any "business" in the U.S., but short of the Great Firewall of Comrizon/Vericast, the MAFIAA won't be able to stop U.S. users from streaming.

Re:simple explanation

[Red Flayer]

The explanation is pretty simple. If you follow the history of the battle over internet radio royalties, you'll quickly see that it is all about stream ripping. The music industry is convinced that millions of people are "stealing" music by recording streaming radio with free tools like streamripper.

It's not just about stream-ripping. It's also about controlling the market. Internet radio destroys the ability of the major labels to determine what music gets played, which means that they lose the marketing oligopoly they currently hold.

Re:Why internet radio is hit harder

[Chatterton]

Except the cost of such material, and the authorization to use some part of the radio spectrum? Hum, nothing.

Re:The ISPs are hitting internet radio too

[nEoN nOoDlE]

who the hell listens to internet radio for 8 hours every single day in a month?If you're considering listening while at the office, that's not bandwidth you should be concerned about so that's gone. The only people we have left using that kind of bandwidth are radio junkies who need some kind of noise playing all the time and who work from home/are unemployed. That's not a very big market, and to a person who needs to listen to that much radio, 30 GB out of 250GB per month (taking the recent Comcast announcement) isn't that much.

Re:Why internet radio is hit harder

[QRDeNameland]

They want to make royalties not just on the content but also the the broadcasting hardware

What's to stop me from using my choice of broadcasting hardware if I was in the terrestrial radio business?

In the USA, that would be the FCC, which operates its Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) "tasked with overseeing equipment authorization for all devices using the electromagnetic energy from 9 kHz to 300 GHz. OET maintains an electronic database of all Certified equipment which can be easily accessed by the public."

Re:Why internet radio is hit harder

[spun]

Oh, I think the fear is very logical, for the reasons that have been pointed out. Gotta maintain that barrier-to-entry to keep the markets under firm control. Otherwise, you know, we might have a free market, and the only people who want that are the very ones being excluded.

Sometimes it's not bias

[Weaselmancer]

Sometimes something truly sucks, and there is no way to put it in a positive light.

The recording industry grinding independent internet radio stations to paste being one good example.

Re:simple explanation

[Red Flayer]

I just don't believe that internet radio is really that powerful, that it really actually completely undermines the "market oligopoly" (as you put it) in some way that traditional radio (which includes thousands of small, independent, and public stations which already play whatever they want whenever they want with no input whatsoever from "the industry") can't do.

Well, first, I believe it's an effort to nip internet radio before it competes o a massive scale. The competition is there, and making inroads...

Second, who do you think really controls terrestrial radio? Not to get all tinfoil-hattish, but the consolidation of terrestrial radio stations has really reduced the variety of radio that's available. The RIAA companies want homogenized radio, which maximizes their profits. Clear Channel et al deliver that. Advertisers want huge conglomerate radio station networks. Clear Channel et al deliver that.

As for the small, independent, and public stations that play whatever they want... what kind of market share do you think they have? I live in a major metro area... I have very few choices. And none that really cater to my tastes.

Seriously, the power of the major labels derives from one thing only -- their ability to market their artists. Any threat to this ability could potentially kill their marketing power, and thus their business.

There's a reason that current law forces internet radio stations to pay SoundExchange even for indie artists -- it's to kill off the the playtime of those indie artists.

Oh come on now

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your point about initial investment costs is valid.

However, I call shenanigans on the idea that people steal copyrighted material from satellite and broadcast. Do you honestly think that people passing around material recorded via their TV antenna can compare with the piracy that happens through people sucking down songs from m3u threads or Live365 and the like?

It would be more sophisticated to respond that people use the Internet once they made the copy, however they get the copy. But still, making a copy of a digital source is so much more likely! I think it's disingenuous and UNHELPFUL to deny the issue.

Re:The ISPs are hitting internet radio too

[gknoy]

who the hell listens to internet radio for 8 hours every single day in a month?If you're considering listening while at the office, that's not bandwidth you should be concerned about so that's gone.

YOU may not care, but the people paying for uploading those bits to you (the net radio providers) certainly care if you're consuming bits that much.

Explore Creative Commons music instead

[Morgaine]

Although Pandora is often seen as the little guy fighting the big bad music industry, Pandora just repackages the output of that industry, so it's feeding the monster and helping to ensure that the money-grabbing evil continues. If we want the monster to die, we need to stop feeding it. Pandora doesn't want the monster to die, it merely wants it to eat less.

So it's make-your-mind-up time, if you want to influence the evolution of music.

If you really want a sea change to occur, try listening to Creative Commons music instead of commercial output. The immense repositories at Jamendo (11,955 albums) and at Archive.org (53,088 concerts, 310,685 recordings) should be enough to keep you busy for the rest of your life, but there's lots more out there.

It's hard work, because there is nobody around to tell you what you must like, as the industry has been doing to us through radio and TV all these years. The diversity and sheer scale of Commons music is astounding, and exploring its uncharted vastness isn't quick nor easy, but ultimately your voyage will be very rewarding. Mine has been.

But you have to take that first step yourself, nobody can help you, short of handing you a few links.

The future really is in your hands. If everyone were to stop buying label output today, the Big 4 and the RIAA would disappear as soon as their coffers dry up, and the small labels would adapt perfectly happily because they're agile. You *can* drop your favourite chart bands if you try --- the discomfort doesn't last long, because there is no shortage of very high quality replacements. The Commons is vast, and the creativity amazing.

The future really is in your hands.