Pandora Paying Artists $0.0001 More Per Stream Than It Was Last Year

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pandora Paying Artists $0.0001 More Per Stream Than It Was Last Year

Posted by samzenpus on Monday April 27, 2015 @12:49AM from the don't-spend-it-all-at-once dept.

journovampire writes: Pandora has revealed that it's paying a 10,000th of a dollar more to music labels and artists than it was in 2014. From the article: "Pandora has revealed that its royalty payments to SoundExchange, the US licensing body which collects performance royalties on behalf of record labels and artists, have just increased by 8%. The news was confirmed in a call with investors following Pandora’s Q1 fiscal results announcement on Thursday (April 23), in which it posted a three-month net loss of $48.3m. In what Pandora CEO Brian McAndrews called a scheduled annual step-up, Pandora has from January 1 been paying out an average $0.0014 per ad-funded stream and $0.0024 per premium stream to SoundExchange."

89 of 124 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 00:53 · Score: 1

Why should they pay to provide free advertisement of the artists music?
The artists should be paying them to carry their music...
1. Re:BAh, by krept · 2015-04-27 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not quite on board with this.
  
  --
  None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
2. Re:BAh, by Richard_at_work · 2015-04-27 01:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  At what point did Pandora explicitly ask the artists if they wanted their work advertising? At which point did the artists explicitly agree to Pandora advertising their works?
  When you build a product which is specifically built around using other peoples works to satisfy your customers requirements, at some point you have to pay the piper - so stop with the fucking advertising "argument", Pandora is taking money from subscribers and advertisers on the back of the works of third parties, so of course there should be recompense to those third parties where those parties require recompense.
3. Re:BAh, by itzly · 2015-04-27 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  At what point did Pandora explicitly ask the artists if they wanted their work advertising
  Since most artists don't own the rights to their work, they didn't need to ask.
4. Re:BAh, by Richard_at_work · 2015-04-27 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so lets be pedantic then - substitute "artist" with "rights holder" in my post then. It's still a valid question.
  The advertising "argument" is a fucking ludicrous one.
5. Re:BAh, by itzly · 2015-04-27 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  If Pandora makes an agreement with SoundExchange about the fee per song, there's no reason why they can't include publicity/advertising as a component of that price.
  Broadcast radio pays nothing, so the notion isn't so crazy as you think.
6. Re:BAh, by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-04-27 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  At what point did Pandora explicitly ask the artists if they wanted their work advertising? At which point did the artists explicitly agree to Pandora advertising their works?
  Pandora is just radio "on the Internet", with the logical efficiencies that unicast delivery can provide. Demanding a different licensing scheme is as much bullshit as every one of the patents that demanded rent for some existing thing and then added "on the Internet" on the end.
  It's only lawyers who benefit from re-litigating established societal norms. Of course, they promise some middlemen riches to get them to file actions, but there's only one party that's guaranteed any riches.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
7. Re:BAh, by pr0fessor · 2015-04-27 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Most indie and small label artists actually own the copyright to their music and just license it to the label for a term usually with options on future work in exchange for the label's services. Indie artists tend to be very protective of their merchandising as even if you can hold a high position on the cmj chart generally your income is not from spins or album sales, it's from performances and merchandising.
8. Re:BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, they don't deserve anything except when they perform really. CDs are just another from of advertising their so called "talent".
  Play live for your money. The End
9. Re:BAh, by Eponymous+Coward · 2015-04-27 02:13 · Score: 2
  
  > Broadcast radio pays nothing
  In the US, they pay BMI and ASCAP.
10. Re:BAh, by jedidiah · 2015-04-27 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  In the US, only song writers are paid for radio play.
  Performers are not.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
11. Re:BAh, by jellomizer · 2015-04-27 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  This free music, idea work with high-school garage bands... But once they are old enough to make a living, they need to charge for their work. Now do you want your paycheck for the work that you do? So you have money for things like food, shelter, and supporting a family?
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
12. Re:BAh, by ichthus · 2015-04-27 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Agree. How is Pandora any different from radio? Artists' labels fight to get air time for singles in order to promote the art, the artist and potentially increase ticket sales when the artist tours. Pandora provides the same service.
  
  --
  sig: sauer
13. Re:BAh, by Eponymous+Coward · 2015-04-27 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  That's not true for satellite radio.
14. Re:BAh, by Karlt1 · 2015-04-27 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  So if a developer writes a new program on their own and publishes it. Should they not get paid every time someone uses it and only get paid for the time they spent writing it? Would you tell a developer if they want to get paid they should continuously write new stuff instead of expecting to get paid for what they already wrote? Should an author only get paid while they are writing a book and not expect to get paid when a copy of the book is sold?
15. Re:BAh, by itzly · 2015-04-27 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Most developers are only paid for the hours they are actually working, and are not getting paid for actual use of their product.
16. Re:BAh, by itzly · 2015-04-27 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Now do you want your paycheck for the work that you do? So you have money for things like food, shelter, and supporting a family?
  Sure, but most people only get a paycheck for the work they did that month, not for the work they did 5 years ago.
17. Re:BAh, by Karlt1 · 2015-04-27 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Words Mean Things:
  "So if a developer writes a new program on their own and publishes it".
  So to clarify the question, if a developer writes a program on their own time and self publishes it, should they not reap the rewards of the program and only get paid for writing it?
18. Re:BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I love playing video games, doing things with my daughter and wife, and playing with my dogs, doesn't mean I'm entitled to get paid for it.
  Music (among other art) is just a hobby that some get paid for, it's not an occupation...
19. Re:BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. do you pay the builders of your house after they build and keep paying them even though they are done building it? No.
  Do you keep paying Ford/GM/Fiat/whoever for your car after you buy it? No.
20. Re:BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ding ding ding!
  We have a winner.
21. Re:BAh, by tompaulco · 2015-04-27 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Music (among other art) is just a hobby that some get paid for, it's not an occupation...
  Interesting opinion. I happen to disagree. Instead, I think that YOUR chosen profession is just a hobby and you don't deserve to get paid for it.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
22. Re:BAh, by morethanapapercert · 2015-04-27 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  I have to say, I'm of really mixed feelings about paying royalties for the right to play music. On the one hand, there is the advertising of a band or artist aspect which you refer to, which helps drive ticket, CD, download and merchandise sales. But on the other hand, musicians are in the business of making music. I see nothing wrong with paying to see/hear them in person, so I have no problem with paying (in some fashion) to hear them broadcast or streamed. Pus, I've been spoiled by growing up during a time when broadcast radio was entirely free, paid for by ads and later having access to virtually unlimited music through legal or illegal downloads.
  The biggest reason I am against requiring publishers, bands or artists paying to have their music streamed though? One word: Payola. If the owners of music have to pay to have their stuff heard, then only the stuff owned by the deepest pockets will get heard. We already complain quite loudly about manufactured bands and artists who have no real talent, are airbrushed, auto-tuned and managed to a fare-thee-well by the big labels. The labels spend a lot of money finding good looking people who are suitable for such exploitation, massaging the image etc etc. They want and need to get that investment back. Pouring money into radio and internet stations would just become part of that investment. If you think that having to pay for play would convince the labels to only focus on bands/artists with *talent* that the consumers want to hear, in sufficient variety, you are clearly not living in the same universe I do.
  Any broadcaster or streaming site pretty much has to choose a playlist based on highest bidder, they are in it to make a profit after all. The only question is; who do you want to be the highest bidder? The music owners=Payola, The advertisers who want music we like to be played so we'll listen (traditional radio and paid access only streaming download sites) Or the actual listeners? (Satellite and some cable-only "radio stations") Everyone involved between the original creative spark and your ears needs to make a living. As I said, I'm spoiled by free radio, streaming and downloads, so I favour the ad supported model rather than the payola or subscriber models. That lets me get my music for free and still have more sense of influence over what is being played.
  I deeply miss Yahoo Launch, free music I could rate, build custom playlists with and so on. There were unskippable ads, a programmed halt in playing every once in awhile to make sure I was at the keyboard and an annoying tendency to play artist interviews/behind the scenes and the odd "top 40" track no matter how vigorously and thoroughly I downvoted that stuff. But even with those annoyances, it was my favourite source of music when at the computer for a long time. Nothing I have found since has quite satisfied me. Currently I am alternating between using the Songza website, the Firetube plugin and Minitube for Linux. I've thought about adding a shoutcast server to my home server machine and building my own playlists, but that wouldn't satisify my desire to get *good* recommendations based on my admittedly eclectic tastes. (early delta blues, the latest death, thrash, symphonic and nu metal, dubstep, electroswing, taiko drums, even the occasional bit of crunk)
  
  --
  I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
23. Re:BAh, by LeadSongDog · 2015-04-27 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  So to clarify the question, if a developer writes a program on their own time and self publishes it, should they not reap the rewards of the program and only get paid for writing it?
  When one sets out to fix someone's grammar, one should tread carefully. In English usage it is unclear whether your "not" is distributive over your "and". It is therefore better to write: "So to clarify the question, if a developer writes a program on their own time and self publishes it, should they get paid only for writing it and not reap the rewards of the program?"
  
  --
  Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
24. Re:BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yet I don't have some artificial "copyright" nonsense regulating my income...
25. Re:BAh, by Karlt1 · 2015-04-27 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  So when should a software developer get paid for software that he wrote on his own time and self publishes?
  When should an author of a book get paid?
  A builder and a car manufacturer gets paid for each house they sell or each car they make respectively. Why shouldn't a developer get paid for each piece of software they write or a book publisher get paid for each copy of a book they sell?
26. Re:BAh, by davester666 · 2015-04-27 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure Pandora has to as well...(besides also paying the 'performer')
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
27. Re:BAh, by Sarten-X · 2015-04-27 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  ...just radio "on the Internet", with the logical efficiencies that unicast delivery can provide.
  
  ...as much bullshit as every one of the patents that demanded rent for some existing thing and then added "on the Internet" on the end.
  What, exactly, are these "logical efficiencies" that can be applied to "just radio" ?
  Can I tune my old car radio to it? I have some of those nice pop-out buttons for the 8-track, AM, FM... is there now a button labeled "IP"? No? Do I perhaps need some other device, like an FM transmitter on my cell phone? I suppose we should consider the cell phone, towers, multiplexers, phone OS, and various interfaces as well... those certainly aren't simple enough to be ignored. On the "just radio" side, there are the stream generators, broadcast gateways, relays, and support infrastructure in place, all of which is wildly different from putting, for example, a simple website "on the Internet".
  Some engineer had to figure this all out, and test it, debug it, update it, and otherwise ensure that the system actually works well enough to put on the market. At one point, that engineer was me. I used to work for a traditional radio station as the "Internet Guy" on the engineering team. Since this was back before Internet-based radio was a popular thing, I only pushed a single stream to about five or six listeners, but that was also just about all our budget could handle, thanks to the limitations of the traditional licensing model.
  See, the way our station was licensed, we were charged by the size of our listening area. A certain number of people could possibly be listening to our broadcast, so we paid licensing fees for them. If we apply that model to our Internet streaming, our half-dozen listeners would have been counted as a few million, and the licensing fees would have exploded similarly, easily consuming our budget for the Internet experiment.
  I know it's easy to simply say "on the Internet", and assume that the engineering will fall into place, but the reality is that putting something online and making it work is often rather difficult, and that affects the balance of effort put forth. It is ridiculous to think, then, that the same licensing model should apply when the underlying technology is so different.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
28. Re:BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  They wrote it once, the rest are just copies, requiring no work on the authors part
29. Re:BAh, by Critical+Facilities · 2015-04-27 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please, that attitude is bullshit and you know it. Does this same edict that you're proposing also apply to Authors? Should they only be paid for the hours they're writing their books? How about painters? Film makers?
  
  Look, you're clearly one of these guys who (for some reason) has a problem with the idea that people can make money creating art, which evidently is something that you think is easy, trivial, and virtually superfluous (Plato, among others, would disagree with you). I can assume that you yourself are not an artist, and with the sarcasm and condescending with which you're commenting, I'm going to make the mental leap and assume that you're one of these guys who just likes to argue and haggle with everybody.
  
  I get it man. You don't like that people can make money this way, and you don't feel like you should have to pay for music because....well....music is dumb, or whatever.
  
  But, you're wrong. Everybody knows it. You sound like a moron. Things will never work out the way you're proposing, and I regret to inform you that musicians and artists are going to continue to make money doing what they love. Sorry that you hate your job and are jealous.
30. Re: BAh, by Karlt1 · 2015-04-27 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Still didn't answer the question. How should an independent developer get paid and who decides?
31. Re:BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry you are a pathetic fool.
  You can fix that, but you refuse.
32. Re: BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  The market decides.
  People will pay you what they think your program is worth. It happens with surprising regularity.
33. Re: BAh, by Karlt1 · 2015-04-28 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Going back to your car analogy....
  Can a person randomly decide how much they want to pay for a car and just walk out with the car based on the price they decide to pay?
34. Re:BAh, by Critical+Facilities · 2015-04-28 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, MitchDev. You're adorable. Such an insightful and though provoking response. I find it so cute when teenagers take time away from playing Grand Theft Auto and practice talking with grown ups on the internet. You are a super scary and tough boy, I am totally totally intimidated by you.
  
  Sincerely, fuck you. Go suck a dick.
35. Re: BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-28 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Car analogy doesn't work. A car is a physical object, if you take it, it isn't still there.
  A copy is just a copy, the original is still there.
36. Re:BAh, by MitchDev · 2015-04-28 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's your hobby, not that there's anything wrong with that.
37. Re: BAh, by Karlt1 · 2015-04-28 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  You made the car analogy. It took a programmer or group of programmers time to write the program. Are you willing to use your time for free and come over to cut my grass?
That's way too much by etash · 2015-04-27 00:54 · Score: 4, Funny

the artists are gonna be rich now and we won't be able to control them!
1. Re:That's way too much by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-27 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, it really doesn't go to the artist, it goes to the owner of their work.
2. Re:That's way too much by AmiMoJo · 2015-04-27 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it seems to be a pay cut, since it's less than inflation in most countries.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:That's way too much by ShanghaiBill · 2015-04-27 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it seems to be a pay cut, since it's less than inflation in most countries.
  It is about a 7% increase. Inflation in most of the developed world is between -1% and 1%. So, no, it is not at "pay cut".
4. Re:That's way too much by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-27 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, came here to say that inflation is more like 2% (the rate the Fed is supposed to maintain),
  Sought data to back me up: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate
  Saw that it backed you up instead :(.
5. Re:That's way too much by tompaulco · 2015-04-27 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it is actually more like 10%, but the government says it is 2-3%. What they don't consider is that a large part of people's expenditures is on things that they don't include in the CPI, like fuel and items which are delivered using fuel, in other words, everything. Most common food items have gone up by 100% or more in the last 10 years. They also do not take into consideration that a "box of crackers" has only gone up by 3% per year in cost, but a "box of crackers" now weighs about half what a "box of crackers" used to weigh. A "Case of soda" used to be 24 cans, and now it is 20 cans for the same price. Presto! 0% inflation.
  Of course, most peoples largest expenditure is insurance, which used to go up about 20% per year, but now thanks to Obamacare, only goes up ...20% per year, with the exception of the first year of Obamacare , when it went up by anywhere from -infinity (due to subsidies given to very few people) to 500% for some people (400% for me personally). Insurance is on a path to account for 100% of people's income in about 20 years at present growth rates. It is currently inifinity% of my income as I was let go in January, but Obamacare still costs me the same now as it did when I was making $85k. I do not get a subsidy or even a tax credit for what I am paying for insurance. I had to pay into the system when I had a job, but now that i don't, the system does not support me at all.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This is why.. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-27 01:06 · Score: 1

.. I'm never going to buy any music.
I'd send money directly to artists, tho.
1. Re:This is why.. by donscarletti · 2015-04-27 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Or, failing the artists, Sound Exchange could set up a credit card payment system. Pay $10 a year (which is what Pandora pays per user if they're all listening to an average of 20 songs a day) and you can pirate with impunity.
  Sure, it would still use the same dubious mechanism for divvying up the profits, but you'd get the convenience of commodity torrent websites, tools and players rather than whatever the commercial offerings are peddling and you would guarantee that a larger percentage of the money would go to the songwriters, performers and producers that make the music that you listen to than if you had gone through Pandora.
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
2. Re:This is why.. by wonkey_monkey · 2015-04-27 01:46 · Score: 2
  
  and you can pirate with impunity.
  Arrghh, ye be takin' all the fun out of it, matey.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:This is why.. by gnupun · 2015-04-27 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  .. I'm never going to buy any music.
  I'd send money directly to artists, tho.
  How frickin hard is it set up a webserver to distribute their own music in this day and age? Protecting the music from pirate distributions once it leaves the server is quite hard though, as is marketing their songs.
4. Re:This is why.. by bluefoxlucid · 2015-04-27 03:18 · Score: 2
  
  Pandora has 200 million users. If they're all listening to 20 songs per day, that's $400,000 of royalties per day.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
5. Re:This is why.. by LynnwoodRooster · 2015-04-27 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  With $48 million in losses over 90 days, that's a bit over $500,000 per day. Seems about right in terms of royalties. Ads and paid subscriptions probably cover operational costs minus royalties.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Artists don't make money from music sales. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-27 01:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

They never really have. Middlemen who constantly keep them relevant with advertising, publish/distribute their music, etc. make all of that money.
Artists make money by going on tour, and by using their fame to get into other business ventures. They don't bank on Pandora making them money, because of Pandora paid more, the middlemen would get that money. All Pandora does is keep them relevant.
1. Re:Artists don't make money from music sales. by tagous · 2015-04-27 01:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  agree, wish I had mod points. https://musicbusinessresearch.... http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot... http://money.futureofmusic.org...
Re:Well.. by thaylin · 2015-04-27 01:13 · Score: 1

It is probably $0.0014 as well.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Some quick math by thaylin · 2015-04-27 01:14 · Score: 1

Not really, when you consider the price of ads has dropped considerably in the past 2 decades, and that an average subscriber listens to.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Some quick math by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2015-04-27 01:21 · Score: 1

>> Population of Earth: 7 billion X a generous 1% of all humans, so 700,000,000 users
Are you sure SlashDot is the right forum for you?
Incorrect. by Lumpy · 2015-04-27 01:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Pandora is paying record labels via ASCAP and BMI that much more. Artists are probably getting less because the record labels and ASCAP/BMI are charging an extra processing fee.
The artists only lose because of the leeches that grab onto them and suck them dry.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:Incorrect. by ckatko · 2015-04-27 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like someone could make balls-tons of money if they operated a non-profit music label that provided all of the usual services that musicians use (recording studios, instruments, backup musicians, venue booking, advertising, steaming service negotiations and so on.)
2. Re:Incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-27 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Most (indie) musicians like my self, use CDBaby (for almost 15 years) it's the easiest path to getting your music on iTunes (and about 50 other online digital sites). Their for artists website is here: http://members.cdbaby.com/
  We literally can just upload .WAV files and the cover photo for our album (for my last one, I didn't even print a physical CD) it gets onto iTunes (and those other sites) within a week. They charge about $100 one time, and they give you 91% of the money that those sites payout.
  They've always been really great to artists.
  (I hope they are rolling in the cash like Scrooge McDuck. They are truly a fabulous service)
3. Re:Incorrect. by CastrTroy · 2015-04-27 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe musicians should just stop selling out to the publishers in hopes of fame and quick money. It seems to me that we don't hear similar stories about authors losing the rights to the books they write when they get a book published. Maybe I'm wrong here, and authors get it just as bad, but it certainly seems to me like they get a much better deal.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
4. Re:Incorrect. by Richard_at_work · 2015-04-27 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  How could that person make "balls-ton of money" when you say its a "non-profit"? They should be charging cost and nothing more.
5. Re:Incorrect. by jedidiah · 2015-04-27 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but you certainly don't have to act like Def Leppard in the process. If you're good enough, even a 50s style recording will be perfectly adequate. If you're not a real musician then you're kind of f*cked regardless.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
6. Re:Incorrect. by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2015-04-27 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  The best metaphor I could come up with was Indentured Servitude... that oddball period of time in colonial days where you sold yourself for a few years for someone to give you a ticket to the Colonies.
  In music, you get an advance, and the studio sets up all the people you need to produce your record. But, the advance comes out of future sales. and all those production people take a cut of your ability to pay back the advance. You're property of the music label for a few years until everything gets settled out.
  The real fear of digital music was the ability to get away from the leeches. when you can set up a home studio for a few thousand and then push your own music on iTunes, less need for labels. They covered themselves by saying "piracy" but it was really a loss of control.
7. Re:Incorrect. by LynnwoodRooster · 2015-04-27 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  The Clinton Foundation seems to have figured it out. End up spending 10% of your income on charitable grants, and the rest goes for "overhead" including private jets and the like. Real easy to live like you have balls-ton of money if you do that!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
8. Re:Incorrect. by LeadSongDog · 2015-04-27 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you're not a real musician then you're kind of f*cked regardless.
  Well, real musicians can't get much rotation for all the fakes, gyrating more-or-less naked on video, even if they're faking the f*cking too.
  
  --
  Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
9. Re:Incorrect. by Lumpy · 2015-04-28 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  And many do. Cake for example started as a bar band, and never really changed their lifestyle much.
  No bathing in pools full of CrySTAL or snorting coke of the backs of $2000 a night hookers.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Some quick math by erebus2161 · 2015-04-27 01:26 · Score: 1

Probably should have taken a little longer with that math. 1% of 7 billion would be 70,000,000 users. So that's $98,000 for ad funded stream and $168,000 for subscription. Not sure what conclusion to draw from that. Not a lot of money from 70,000,000 users listening to your song, but they only listened to it once. If a song is any good, I usually listen to it dozens of times. I'd be interested in seeing what the major radio companies pay to play a song once for 70,000,000 people.
Let's not forget... by argStyopa · 2015-04-27 01:28 · Score: 1

....that's 100% more than radio stations are paying to play the same songs.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Let's not forget... by bloodhawk · 2015-04-27 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  ....that's 100% more than radio stations are paying to play the same songs.
  ahhh no. Radio stations pay licensing fees too. some of those fees for commercial stations can be pretty sizable too.
2. Re:Let's not forget... by tepples · 2015-04-27 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  FM radio stations pay (the company that represents) the songwriter. Internet radio pays both (the company that represents) the songwriter and (the company that represents) the recording artist.
3. Re:Let's not forget... by wonkey_monkey · 2015-04-27 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  So radio stations pay $0.0007? Or are you trying to say they pay $0?
  I don't think either of those is true...
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
4. Re:Let's not forget... by Eponymous+Coward · 2015-04-27 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Radio stations pay BMI and ASCAP.
  I wish articles like this would provide some context. How much do the rights holders get per play on terrestrial radio? Satellite radio? Is internet radio higher or lower?
5. Re:Let's not forget... by Overzeetop · 2015-04-27 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Terrestrial radio pays only the songwriter, not the performing artist. And the songwriter fees are exceptionally low per listener (far lower than Pandora). Worse yet, only the top n songwriters get paid at all based on total plays; if you're not in high rotation, there's no distribution to you.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Alternatives for Artists? by ohnocitizen · 2015-04-27 01:45 · Score: 1

Are there any good alternatives for musical artists who want to make money off their work, want to embrace technology (vs fight it) and don't already have a massive audience like Radiohead? If you have that audience, asking people to "pay what you want" seems to work (and really well). But it seems like an entire revenue stream (music sales) is drying up in favor of tours. That doesn't bode well for artists, or for fans who want to see affordable live music. But it seems like the demand is there, and people will buy music if there is any easy way to do so. So is there a middleman who doesn't suck up most of the profit?
1. Re:Alternatives for Artists? by drinkypoo · 2015-04-27 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  But it seems like an entire revenue stream (music sales) is drying up in favor of tours.
  What? Most artists never make anything on record sales, they get their money from tours, doing commercials...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Some quick math by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-27 01:49 · Score: 1

It is a very generous 1%.
Reverse revenue stream by PopeRatzo · 2015-04-27 01:53 · Score: 1

Since most of the artists I listen to on streaming services are dead, should they be paying me?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Could be more with International Subscribers by oobayly · 2015-04-27 01:54 · Score: 1

What world are you living on? On the real world that kind of crazy talk might fly, but this is MAFIAA town we're talking about.
Big Spenders! by Greyfox · 2015-04-27 02:22 · Score: 1

Pandora's MAKING IT RAIN! Just do that dance 1000 more times and I'll give you a penny!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How much is Sound Exchange skimming off the top? by QuietLagoon · 2015-04-27 02:28 · Score: 1

How much of the money Sound Exchange collects goes to the artists, how much of the money Sound Exchange collects goes to music publishers? How much of the money Sound Exchange collects goes to song writers?
.
The money trail in the music industry is long, crooked and complex. Unless you are a big enough act that the records companies accept the contract you write, the only money you will see appears in your upturned hat.....
Re:How much is Sound Exchange skimming off the top by rudy_wayne · 2015-04-27 02:47 · Score: 1

How much of the money Sound Exchange collects goes to the artists, how much of the money Sound Exchange collects goes to music publishers? How much of the money Sound Exchange collects goes to song writers?
.The money trail in the music industry is long, crooked and complex. Unless you are a big enough act that the records companies accept the contract you write, the only money you will see appears in your upturned hat.....
How much money does SoundExchange keep for itself? I bet they aren't doing this for free.
Commercial radio has a sweet deal by Overzeetop · 2015-04-27 03:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Radio stations pay exactly zero to the performing artists. What they pay are royalties to the songwriters. And compared to Pandora, those rates are insanely low per "stream" - i.e. per event coming out of a receiver. They may be paying $0.60-$1.00 a spin at a large metro station, but with 100,000+ average listeners for a top-of-market station, that's less than 1/10 of what Pandora pays.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Increased royalties are proven necessary by Overzeetop · 2015-04-27 03:06 · Score: 1

You should pay more, didn't you know. Without an and increase in copyright royalties, those dead authors will have no incentive to write any new songs.
I mean, have you heard anything new from those dead songwriters since internet streaming took off? Of course not - that's proof that the royalties aren't high enough to make it worth their while.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Some quick math by Gibgezr · 2015-04-27 03:54 · Score: 2

Coffee cleanup on keyboard 1, please.
Re:I WILL FIND YOU! by MitchDev · 2015-04-27 04:20 · Score: 1

I thought that was Liam Neeson's line in every "Taken" movie....
Lars owes him money if he uses it ;)
Re:Some quick math by Cimexus · 2015-04-27 04:55 · Score: 1

Notwithstanding the dodgy 1% calculation, Pandora is only available in three countries:
USA: population ~318M
Australia: population ~24M
New Zealand: population ~4M
So you only have a total population of ~346 million people who could even ~potentially~ be Pandora subscribers.
Grandpa by bughunter · 2015-04-27 05:09 · Score: 1

As my grandpa would say, when he gave me a quarter:
"Try not to spend it all in one place."
He thought it was hilarious.
(This was circa 1975, admittedly. Back when a quarter could still buy something of value.)

--
I can see the fnords!
You must work for Columbia Records by LrdDimwit · 2015-04-27 06:30 · Score: 1

A hundredth of a penny spent actually paying the artists is a hundredth of a penny wasted? Spoken like a true record company executive.
And... by WillyWanker · 2015-04-27 12:04 · Score: 1

It's more of a raise than most people got, so stop bitching.
And to think, if they broadcast over the air by sabbede · 2015-04-27 23:39 · Score: 1

instead of over the internet, they would pay $0.000000. Hell, the labels might even want to pay them for airtime.