6 ms·

That makes me really really sad :( Pandora is one of the rare services which just scream quality. The service itself is great, the web interface is slick, the a

by ashu 18y ago

That makes me really really sad :( Pandora is one of the rare services which just scream quality. The service itself is great, the web interface is slick, the ads are slick, the iPhone app is amazing.

vaksel 18y ago
yeah I have OpenPandora running all the time(its the program to run Pandora w/o going to the site), it made me stop listening to my mp3s since with the pandora after you fine tune your preferences almost all the songs you hear are the ones you like.
fallentimes 18y ago
"Our artists and copyright owners deserve to be fairly compensated for the blood and sweat that forms the core product of these businesses," said Mike Huppe, general counsel for SoundExchange." Keeping in mind that traditional radio does not pay any fees for playing music, Mike Huppe is in for a treat if Pandora is shut down. Tons of infuriated, tech savvy users will have his name and an axe to grind. I don't think SoundExchange aka the _RIAA_ (nice try Suit factory) fully understands what they're getting in to. Also related: This is not about the artists; the majority of those fees go to the labels - not the talent. Besides what does Mike Huppe know about blood and sweat? He shuffles papers around all day. http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1570397_1?noconfirm=1 http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1570397_1?noconfirm=1 Edit: I've been reading traditional radio still pays fees. Regardless, they are a fraction of what Pandora may have to pay.
- tdavis 18y ago
  I wonder how many times a person's identity can be stolen. I want to help find out.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  Well I just used prankdialer to rick roll him. Sadly that is about as much power as I seem to have without actually making an effort.
- helveticaman 18y ago
  I find some satisfaction in the losses the two publicly traded labels are making: Time Warner: 21 million USD in loss EMI: 260 million GBP loss (~ 520M USD) There is no info on the others, but it would be hard for them to make big bucks while Warner Music Group's stock drops 74%. http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chdet=1199480400000&chddm=97025&q=NYSE:WMG&#38 http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chd...;
- sabat 18y ago
  Not sure what you read, but traditional radio does not pay fees to the record industry. Zero. They do pay ASCAP/BMI fees, however. Those are just for the performance, and the artists actually do tend to get the money from that. (That's as opposed to the money the RIAA gets from CD sales, etc., which the artists almost never see.)
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    I read something about this "They do pay ASCAP/BMI fees" - my original post was too general. I should have specified exactly what type of fees each medium paid (internet vs FM/AM vs satellite).
  - indiejade 18y ago
    Conversely, radio stations are often paid by major labels to repeatedly play/promote certain artists. If you've ever listened to a "popular" music station and wondered why certain songs seem to get played again and again -- sometimes as much as every hour -- that's why. There's actually some kind of psychology thing involved; the more times a person hears a song, the more likely that person is to end up liking it. This whole thing reeks because it's basically the RIAA and major labels getting into a big huff because they are losing control over the outlets that they used to control.
    - netcan 18y ago
      An irony of this kind of business is that if someone isn't going to buy, it's still to the benefit of the vendor if she has it. The only issue is that it's almost impossible to distinguish between a give-away that cannibalises a sale & one that does not. Presumably, terrestrial radio is not seen as a potential replacement for CDs while internet/satellite is. It's all rubbish of course. In a way, 'stars' might be a lot worse off without piracy. Consumers might be drawn to free music given away by weird artists (Radiohead, NIN). Presumably a lot of those would be artists with 0 sales & nothing to cannibalise. Take, software as an analogy. How many users of pirated MS Office would otherwise use Open Office? In the south, these might have become the standard if not for piracy.
    - 18y ago
netcan 18y ago
>"That makes me really sad" Id say it makes a lot of people angry. It's also another step in making people reconsider the concept of copyright for music. I think someone's mentioned it here in the discussion: Copyright protection is not an inalienable right (like the right to remain silent), it's an instrument designed to have some desirable result (like tax deductions). Copyright in this case is preventing innovative products & services, and very probably harmful to the art itself. 'Small' artists & genres have the most to gain from the potential of free music.
stcredzero 18y ago
Pandora is flat-out one of the best marketing opportunities for the music industry. If they were smart, they'd be harnessing that, not trying to kill it.

by ashu 18y ago

vaksel 18y ago

yeah I have OpenPandora running all the time(its the program to run Pandora w/o going to the site), it made me stop listening to my mp3s since with the pandora after you fine tune your preferences almost all the songs you hear are the ones you like.

fallentimes 18y ago

"Our artists and copyright owners deserve to be fairly compensated for the blood and sweat that forms the core product of these businesses," said Mike Huppe, general counsel for SoundExchange." Keeping in mind that traditional radio does not pay any fees for playing music, Mike Huppe is in for a treat if Pandora is shut down. Tons of infuriated, tech savvy users will have his name and an axe to grind. I don't think SoundExchange aka the _RIAA_ (nice try Suit factory) fully understands what they're getting in to. Also related: This is not about the artists; the majority of those fees go to the labels - not the talent. Besides what does Mike Huppe know about blood and sweat? He shuffles papers around all day. http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1570397_1?noconfirm=1 http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1570397_1?noconfirm=1 Edit: I've been reading traditional radio still pays fees. Regardless, they are a fraction of what Pandora may have to pay.

tdavis 18y ago
I wonder how many times a person's identity can be stolen. I want to help find out.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Xichekolas 18y ago
Well I just used prankdialer to rick roll him. Sadly that is about as much power as I seem to have without actually making an effort.
helveticaman 18y ago
I find some satisfaction in the losses the two publicly traded labels are making: Time Warner: 21 million USD in loss EMI: 260 million GBP loss (~ 520M USD) There is no info on the others, but it would be hard for them to make big bucks while Warner Music Group's stock drops 74%. http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chdet=1199480400000&chddm=97025&q=NYSE:WMG&#38 http://finance.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chd...;
sabat 18y ago
Not sure what you read, but traditional radio does not pay fees to the record industry. Zero. They do pay ASCAP/BMI fees, however. Those are just for the performance, and the artists actually do tend to get the money from that. (That's as opposed to the money the RIAA gets from CD sales, etc., which the artists almost never see.)
- fallentimes 18y ago
  I read something about this "They do pay ASCAP/BMI fees" - my original post was too general. I should have specified exactly what type of fees each medium paid (internet vs FM/AM vs satellite).
- indiejade 18y ago
  Conversely, radio stations are often paid by major labels to repeatedly play/promote certain artists. If you've ever listened to a "popular" music station and wondered why certain songs seem to get played again and again -- sometimes as much as every hour -- that's why. There's actually some kind of psychology thing involved; the more times a person hears a song, the more likely that person is to end up liking it. This whole thing reeks because it's basically the RIAA and major labels getting into a big huff because they are losing control over the outlets that they used to control.
  - netcan 18y ago
    An irony of this kind of business is that if someone isn't going to buy, it's still to the benefit of the vendor if she has it. The only issue is that it's almost impossible to distinguish between a give-away that cannibalises a sale & one that does not. Presumably, terrestrial radio is not seen as a potential replacement for CDs while internet/satellite is. It's all rubbish of course. In a way, 'stars' might be a lot worse off without piracy. Consumers might be drawn to free music given away by weird artists (Radiohead, NIN). Presumably a lot of those would be artists with 0 sales & nothing to cannibalise. Take, software as an analogy. How many users of pirated MS Office would otherwise use Open Office? In the south, these might have become the standard if not for piracy.
  - 18y ago

netcan 18y ago

>"That makes me really sad" Id say it makes a lot of people angry. It's also another step in making people reconsider the concept of copyright for music. I think someone's mentioned it here in the discussion: Copyright protection is not an inalienable right (like the right to remain silent), it's an instrument designed to have some desirable result (like tax deductions). Copyright in this case is preventing innovative products & services, and very probably harmful to the art itself. 'Small' artists & genres have the most to gain from the potential of free music.

stcredzero 18y ago

Pandora is flat-out one of the best marketing opportunities for the music industry. If they were smart, they'd be harnessing that, not trying to kill it.