Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-say-no dept.

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.'"

11 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Intentions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Intentions by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Intentions by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:Intentions by RazzleFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Intentions by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Intentions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then those Song-writers should sell their songs for the value they have.
      Good song writer? One song per year? you should hope to sell your song for what... 60,000 dollars?
      If you are a "Song Writer" and hope to be paid a decent wage, sell your fucking wares and earn one. Don't come to us crying that you aren't a performer and can't perform it.

      Same as a programmer, I write programs for a salary. Songwriters (that are only songwriters) sell their songs for the value of the work.

      I know I *could* write programs for the chance at 1 dollar per buy, and try to enforce copyrights as hard as I can, but I know that is a fucking retarded business model that means if I don't spend all my life attempting to force potential customers into paying the one dollar I will be a poor bastard.
      Instead I take the valuable portions of my knowledge (the ability to write programs) and come to an agreement with someone that needs my services (has a function they want a program to do) and I sell that.

      Performers have valuable knowledge. (Ability to play songs .. well?) and should come to an agreement with someone that needs that service (a music venue needs music to placate and or draw in an audience to buy alcohol). And then the performer can sell that.

      The Songwriter has valuable knowledge (ability to arrange music) and should come to an agreement with someone that needs that service (a Performer that can't write music) and the songwriter can sell that.
      That way we have the perfect circle jerk, Songwriters sell music to performers to perform at clubs and shit to make money for the club owners.
      Or maybe the sell their performance to a crowd of people.

      Just because the cost to write songs is fuckall of nothing, doesn't mean a good songwriter wont make a living. Just because the cost to perform songs is between fuckall of nothing and the cost of a second hand musical instrument, doesn't mean they wont make a living.

      If any one of the above can figure out a way to get other people to pay them, that is a bonus. No one else "deserves" a fucking thing beyond that.

  2. No public interest? by redmid17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  3. ah the ASCAP by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. So, it's okay for every other broadcaster... by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  5. A major selling point! by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  6. Equal pay for equal performance by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.