What is Digg?228 Comments
- laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+411The best Pandora can come up with is an online petition?? Oh ***** we're screwed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+241***** the RIAA
- TheThirdRider, on 10/12/2007, -3/+165only if the RIAA does
- datter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+140That sucks mightily.
- VegaObscura3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+93I thought Pandora had a license to put out music free legally. Why did the RIAA suddenly change their mind?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+90Why do people still buy RIAA stuff? I check the RIAA radar before buying anything. I know that the artists shouldn't suffer for their record company's sins, but if we all stopped buying their music, maybe they'd get off their asses and do something about it.
http://www.riaaradar.com - Blazeix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+90@laplacian, yeah probably. Here's the petition though:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveinternetradio
16,937 Signatures so far... - jayhawk88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+83Will that phrase ever die?
Why should it? Seriously, since finding Pandora I have bought over 40 iTunes songs as a direct result of not only hearing a particular song on Pandora, but also purchasing other songs by the artists after liking the one that Pandora played for me.
A perfect example in my case is Camera Obscura. I would have never known about this band if not for Pandora, and even if some had told me about them, I would not have purchased any songs from them: the top 10 songs listed on iTunes for them when you do a search didn't really catch my attention. Generally if I'm checking out a new artist I listen to the first 2 or 3 most popular tunes by them and decide whether to buy or look further. However, Pandora played "Don't Do Crowds" for me at some point and I liked it. iTunes lists this as maybe the 15th or 20th most popular Camera Obscura song for some reason, but because I knew I liked the song thanks to Pandora, I bought it, and looked further into Camera Obscura enough to find "80's Fan" as well, and it's quite possible I'll keep looking and purchase more songs from them later on.
I know my situation cannot be unique. It's gone this way with me for several other bands as well, bands that I have no hope of hearing if I rely on the horrible radio stations in Wichita, KS, where "alternative" is a Nickleback hit from 2 years ago. When Fly-92, the last radio station in this city still even remotely interested in playing music not on the playlists of 100 other radio stations, went under about a year ago, I was starved for anything new and interesting (to me anyway), and Pandora was a major help. And the RIAA wants to take this away, why? Because they think Pandora listeners like me are "getting over" somehow? If they even bothered to do a modicum of research they'd probably discover that there is a gold mine in places like Pandora waiting to be exploited. Pandora themselves link to Amazon and iTunes for any music you bookmark or Thumbs up; if the RIAA was really interested in promoting and increasing the sales of all their artists they'd work with Pandora and other sites, offer them reasonable royalty payments or perhaps figure out some form of advertising model that works and still keeps customers happy.
But of course the RIAA is not interested in promoting all their artists and increasing their sales, at least not directly. They're interested in using their artists to line their member companies coffers, and the most efficient way to do this is to concentrate all their efforts into hyping their "big" artists, the ones that bring in the mega sales. In fact let me modify a previous statement: the RIAA has absolutely done research on sites like Pandora and know that their is a gold mine there, but they don't want to exploit it. Doing so undermines the hype machine they need to sustain the sales of their mega artists.
In a way it's almost hard to blame them: It takes a certain amount of investment money for a record company to produce the music of an artist. Now if you have a system where all artists are afforded equal marketing and opportunity, you probably have a situation where you make money on some, lose on others, and in the end if you have good people and good business sense you probably end up with decent but not spectacular profits at the end of the day. On the flip side, you can sink 90% of your marketing and opportunities into 10% of the artists that you believe have the best chance of reaching "superstar" sales status, and realize profits that far outstrip anything you could make otherwise. This of course only works if you have virtual control over what radio stations play, as you need them to be flogging the songs you want to become mega-hits 24/7. Anything out there that easily allows people to be exposed to "other" music threatens this plan.
This is an important point I believe: It's one thing for people like me who have long ago given up on "popular" radio and now actively seek out other artists. There really isn't anything the RIAA can do at this point (that would still fall in line with their business model) to convince me to once again regularly listen to their member stations. I have no doubt that KICT-95 still occasionally plays a song that I like, but I don't know about it, because I refuse to sit through the other 3 and a half hours of the same old drek. The RIAA doesn't care about me. If sites like Pandora start reaching a wider audience, including people who still are listening to RIAA influenced radio...This is what the RIAA genuinely fears.
All of this sounds like a "OMG radio suxors my music is better than yours fight teh Power Talk Hard!!1!" rant I realize, but it really is the heart of explaining the RIAA's actions. The people who run the RIAA are by and large people who have spent their adult lives working in, reading about, and generally making it their job to understand radio and the people who listen to it. They are very good at their jobs, and they are not stupid. They fully realize that a site like Pandora can and does expose people to new music and artists, and that people will buy from these artists as a direct result. They understand this completely, and this is what they fear. Giving their listeners more and better choices in music will lead to less sales for their mega artists. - fyrehart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+77I've decided that if I like an artist enough to buy a CD, I'll pirate the CD and send the artist $20 cash with a note explaining how I hate the RIAA and am bypassing the corporate *****. That way the artist makes the money, not the record companies.
- kamisama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61Pardon my French but ... what a bunch of *****.
- mehigh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48those RIAA bastards take away everything from us just because they fly Gulfstream-3 jets now instead of Gulfstream-4
- xXShadowstormXx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+45Sadly, just saying that doesn't help. We need action!
- moiremusic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+44@smokinjuan: You've never used Pandora, have you? It's all about finding new music you'd like by hearing music similar to your tastes, not by downloading random albums from peer-to-peer software. Pandora is genius, and more importantly, very effective. It will be sorely missed.
- MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -1/+44@insomuchas: No, wrong. It's called a compulsory license, and it's a standard fee that you have to pay to play a song over the radio. The band or label can't refuse to license the work if that fee is paid. What this is doing is setting a different, and much higher, fee for internet radio, which will effectively kill the medium entirely.
- stou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39they are so stupid... the first time I ever bought music on iTunes was because I heard it on pandora.... I am sure others have as well.
- drdepoy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44fascism at its best. large corporations effectivly controlling the rule of law for the sole benefit of making more money.
god bless the USA. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Without Pandora how else am I going find cool obscure music that allows me to act like a rock elitist.
- cmv0, on 10/12/2007, -14/+44Will that phrase ever die?
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30I've been introduced to more good music on Pandora in the last year than in the previous 10 years on radio. It's led me to purchase CD and actually go to live shows. I don't want to here My Chemical Romance, with their teen-goth popularity, mimicking Queen in a piss poor way, I want to hear Assembly of Dust with great songs and killer jams--a band I never would have heard of without Pandora. Because of me, that band has 6 new fans (and probably growing). RIAA doesn't just hate music listeners, they hate real artists who make real music unmarred by concerns of revenue in the core CD -purchasing demographic.
It can't be said enough: ***** RIAA.
At night, I have fantasies of single-handedly taking them down with a He-Man sword. - cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29@ImTheDarkcyde
It's not free... The company that manages the Pandora site and service already pays broadcast fees for all the songs played on individual channels on Pandora. They pay those fees to the agencies that have already been in place for decades to manage royalties for artists and record labels.
@insomuchas
Pandora has the publishers consent, as part of the fee agreement established with ASCAP.
The Major record labels already have a contact link to most of these internet radio companies to request titles and artist be removed from thier catalogs, and Pandora at least has contact points thru their blog where an induvidual artist can request thier songs be removed (and they have done so in the past IIRC).
You are wrong on the respect that the Record Companies decide which songs to play on the radio, that might be part of their contract with specific broadcasters like clearchannel to suggest playable songs, but any effort to unduly influence that broadcasters choice in what to play or what is requested is considered a form of payola, which is illegal and they have been heavily fined for in the past.
If a song from an album gets played "out of order" and still manages to turn that album into a hit for the record label, I don't think they are going to complain about getting tons of money before they were expecting to. - Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I always had a little bit of sympathy for the RIAA trying to protect their property, even if I felt their targets were misguided and incredibly draconian. Now I have absolutely no positive sentiments at all. Pandora was the one product i used to listen to music, a great legal service that worked with the RIAA. Now that they are doing this I am convinced they just hate any customer but one that bends over. I will never buy another album from any artist under an RIAA label again.
- linuxdaemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Last.fm is based in London, so there might be some bit of hope there.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25They dont have to shut down, they can simply start streaming non-RIAA associated music. Theres a lot of it out there and its probably better anyways.
BTW my apostrophe key is having problems, disregard. - mscman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Unfortunately, the RIAA isn't suffering at all; they're the ones profiting. The artists are losing money not because of piracy (as the RIAA wants you to believe), but because the RIAA is pocketing all of the cash themselves. They still have their Gulfstream 4's while the artists get only the Gulfstream 3's. Eh, i guess they're not THAT bad off after all...
- smokinjuan, on 10/12/2007, -20/+41Why are you people so pissed off?
Your music won't go away, just your way of obtaining it. Dust off your bittorrent clients and get back to work. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2510 points for English
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25The traditional Music Industry has little to offer anymore. Their profit chasing has pipelined most music into formulatic crap. The Cybermusic audience will find or create for themselves, the content they're looking for - Open Source music. Artists who sign recording deals should be ignored.
- TheThirdRider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21i have to reply again, i am so PISSED! i love pandora, it gets me through the day at work (that and digg). in fact i'm listening to it right now. ***** bastards, i wish i could digg the parent post up again.
xXShadowstormXx is right. we need action! lets form a mob and tar/feather these pricks. - ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22it won't be. that's the point.
- kosai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19It's a truly sad day when an idea like "Move from America to Iran for the freedom" can actually makes sense.
- mscman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Will the RIAA ever die?!
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16BTW RIAA, since I started using Pandora I've spent 10 times more money buying music than I ever did before with the handy purchase on iTunes button built into Pandora's interface.
- cdklein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15The entire point of Pandora is finding new artists similar to what you already listen to, so it's not exactly fair to complain that you don't create your own playlists. If I only wanted to listen to music I already know about, I'd just listen to off my mp3 player or computer.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Is there an antitrust action that can be taken against the RIAA?
- R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Someone explain to me how this is not price fixing?
- stevius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14last.fm is based out of london... unless the uk equivalent enacts the same ridiculous scheme, it should be alright.
- cdklein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I'm curious how Pandora can be used for pirating anymore than a conventional radio station can be used? I mean, you can sit with a tape deck recording the radio, but it's not like the RIAA is demanding that conventional radio stations pay based on how many listeners they have.
- mscman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Hmm... just like allofmp3.com?
I know, that was Russia, but still... - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@NanoStuff
Never watched MTV. they play crap.
I rarely listen to the radio and hate most of what I see.
I've heard everything from Red Delicious, to Patriotic Shock, to Tool, to Theatre of Tragedy, to Coven 13..
you know what the trend was?
The stuff attached to a good label was of better sound quality, with a more refined sound.
I don't care so much about the "sound quality", but I like a refined sound. Someone who obvious knows their stuff... The only unsigned people who struck me like that sing opera, and I hate opera.
Red Delicious was great, which is why they got signed eventually... They're the only band that was on mp3.com that I was able to stand, back in the old days before mp3.com changed.
Patriotic Shock was *****... unsigned cheap trashy punk. Last I heard, they were still unsigned.
The rest, eh, mixed bag, good and bad...
Don't go assuming I'm a complete sheep and tell me to stop watching MTV because I have an informed opinion. I check out every single band anyone has ever pointed me at, including local bands that my cashier has on his T-shirt.
Face it, you may love some ameteur bands, but that doesn't mean everyone who doesn't is just some MTV-following hippy.
Thanks for your pointless bury, I wear it with pride - mehigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11you reckon that Last.fm is next
- starck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15People who work at RIAA is a complete jerk, they make people live so miserable.
- DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Well, in all fairness I've used Pandora as a piracy tool in the past, so I can see why the RIAA would have a problem with them.
It would suck to see Pandora go though. They've really been instrumental in turning me on to new music (most of which I end up buying). - bwilstyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Pandora's sound quality is superior. It's song picking algorithm also stomps Finetune.
- gabacho2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9A for effort anyway. I'll thumbs up that. At least I know what he was talking about
- HalFTW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9http://www.webcastersunited.com
http://www.smallwebcaster.org
http://www.webcastersunite.net
http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/rates-terms2005-1.pdf
http://www.savethestreams.org
http://www.broadcastlawblog.com
http://www.savenetradio.org
http://www.saveourinternetradio.com
http://www.kurthanson.com
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveinternetradio/ - cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I know that the people behind Pandora go out of their way to try and make the songs they broadcast hard to pirate, because many of the people that work for the company are musicians themselves, and one of the primary goals they had for the service was to introduce people to new music and independent musicians that might not get as good a chance for exposure thru regular distribution channels.
That's why they do things like not playing a specifically requested song right away, and limit the number of times a specific song or artist is played per session. Both to expose the listener to more music they might not have head before, and to avoid accusations of supporting piracy.
I'm glad you have ended up buying music that you have discovered thru Pandora, and I hope you have given feedback on those songs and artist to the service, so other listeners can have a better chance of being exposed to those songs as well. - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Interesting hypothesis. My entire music collection doesn't have a single RIAA label. Maybe you should seek beyond MTV.
- gregdigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1099999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
-
Show 51 - 100 of 224 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is