Pink Floyd on Pandora

Hodu - fair point.

I'ts likely that Pandora downplayed the negative impact of their proposal when they circulated their request for signatures on a petition. Companies tend to do that.
It's also clear that whatever case Pandora made in their request (i.e. that artists will ultimately benefit from the proposal) was downplayed in the USA Today piece. Indignant pronouncements tend to do that, too.

Again, I'm not defending Pandora here - I don't have enough information for that. I'm just pointing out that there are complexities here and the devil is so often in the details (which, of course, we lack!)

Marty

BTW - Full disclosure. I am a casual friend of the CEO of one of the major subscription music service companies. (It's not Pandora, but they're in the same boat as Pandora.) It's possible that my sympathies (and judgement) are colored by that relationship.

Wow, real interesting.
Yawn.....

"AM/FM do not pay anything" (sic), so why is Pandora a bad guy for wanting to pay less than they currently do? Methods aside, radio, be it broadcast or internet, has always been more of a promotional tool for bands than a money maker. I'm surprised internet radio has a different arrangement than broadcast radio.

Not sure there IS a downside for the bands, especially if it is only a few thousand dollars a year to them. Does a band making millions on tour really notice that their radio royalty went from about $400 a month to something less? Seems like they should be considering this as an advertising expense anyway.