+48V
hi-fi or die
Ponder for a minute, why would that be?
Pink Floyd slams Pandora
- Thread starter Naptown Rob
- Start date
Ponder for a minute, why would that be?
+48V
hi-fi or die
1. Pandora does not (cannot) play "only that artist".
2. What about an FM station that simulcasts it's tower feed via the internet? Should their rates be set by a different standard than XM or cable?
+48V
hi-fi or die
@JohnVF You and I generally and for the most part see eye to eye on most subjects. Typically you're dead nuts on (in my view) with your comments, thoughts, and succinct logic.
So please know that I respect your words and opinion greatly and that I’m not trying to be unnecessarily combative towards you just because it appears that I’m engaging/questioning your comments.
That said, you’re missing a great deal of history and information on this subject. Otherwise I’m convinced you’d have a different if not less vitriolic (screw the artist) take as far as internet radio is concerned. :thmbsp:
So please know that I respect your words and opinion greatly and that I’m not trying to be unnecessarily combative towards you just because it appears that I’m engaging/questioning your comments.
That said, you’re missing a great deal of history and information on this subject. Otherwise I’m convinced you’d have a different if not less vitriolic (screw the artist) take as far as internet radio is concerned. :thmbsp:
Last edited:
aldread
Well-Known Member
In what kind of a market is a vendor (Pink Floyd) forced to sell their product (music) to a distributor (Pandora) at a price fixed by the government, and not even allowed the choice of withholding that product?
Say what you want about the wealth of a (very) few musicians, they have unique, world-class talents, and they should have the right to earn as much as they can. Charity giving is their personal, private right, it's presumptuous to tell someone else what to do with their money!
At least if I can't make enough money at work, I have the right to stay home!
Say what you want about the wealth of a (very) few musicians, they have unique, world-class talents, and they should have the right to earn as much as they can. Charity giving is their personal, private right, it's presumptuous to tell someone else what to do with their money!
At least if I can't make enough money at work, I have the right to stay home!
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
Yeh, it's never pretty when an old geezer goes on a bitter delusional rant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8bZsglsLLs
+48V
hi-fi or die
Under the Copyright Act of 1976 section 115 amended:
Anyone wishing to make and distribute phono records of a nondramaticmusical work can negotiate directly with the copyright owner or his or her agent. But if the copyright owner is unwilling to negotiate, or if the copyright owner can not be contacted, the person intending to record the work or make a DPD can use the compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law.
That's the letter of US copyright law. It's been massaged/amended numerous times along the way to where we are presently. There was and still is good reason behind compulsory licensing in copyright law. If not...then much of what you've heard on the "radio" since you were born would've been impossible or impractical to license and thereby illegal---
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
Bingo.
Dictating terms is not negotiating, in this sense.
Pandora can offer 25%, PF can counteroffer 105% of the current rate. If neither side can agree, PF can remove their catalogue at will.
Cutting a deal with Amazon and/or iTunes is a completely different and wholly separate matter folks.
This all seems simple enough, PF can simply decide not to allow Pandora to play their music, assuming PF actually has control of their own library. Most artists don't.
It may seem, and actually may be low ball, but I guess getting money, even if not much, from one more source is better than not getting it. Although I don't think government should be involved in this in any way. It's between the industry/artists and music providers.
With all the "illegal" means of getting music for free, I'm not sure how much I can side against a company like Pandora offering to pay, even if it's not much. Maybe PF thinks Pandoras profit is too large, and if so, we go full circle I guess.
For the record, I don't use Pandora or any other like provider, except occasionally Slacker for free on my phone.
It may seem, and actually may be low ball, but I guess getting money, even if not much, from one more source is better than not getting it. Although I don't think government should be involved in this in any way. It's between the industry/artists and music providers.
With all the "illegal" means of getting music for free, I'm not sure how much I can side against a company like Pandora offering to pay, even if it's not much. Maybe PF thinks Pandoras profit is too large, and if so, we go full circle I guess.
For the record, I don't use Pandora or any other like provider, except occasionally Slacker for free on my phone.
cubdog
banging through drywall
I'll make one last comment here. As I've said repeatedly I wish the best for the musicians. They deserve better. However, and this may seem callous and cynical, but the musicians must bear a large part of the responsibility for this mess. The recording industry has been screwing the artist for decades. Literally from the beginnings of recorded music. Each generation of musicians have been confronted by greedy recording and publishing companies, or so it seems, and they continually bemoan their status. Yet here we are in 2013 and nothing has changed. Why? Where would these recording companies be without the recording artist? I don't pretend to have any answers but how many industries today still have such an unbalanced relationship between "management" and "labor"? I've known a lot of creative people and sadly many have lacked basic business skills. I think this is finally changing but obviously more need to be done for there to be a real and lasting change.
cubdog
cubdog
pitabread
Super duper.
Pretty much all of them, it is a status thing more than anything else in certain industries, ''I work in the office there for I am better than the minimum wage grunt out on the shop floor'' however it is the grunt out on the shop floor running the business.
I think in the recording industry things are changing, teenagers can record digitally in their bedroom and there are a lot of people with small recording studios, the main problem is distribution, once that gets nailed (Pandora?) you might see a lot of people in the recording industry changing their tune.
Party's over by the looks of it.
As for Pink Floyd? They are dinosaurs from a different age, times are changing and the ''little man'' has a distribution network on the internet that Pink Floyd never had which means their work is hitting more ears than it could have 40 years ago.
They just need to figure out how to earn from it.
And lets be honest here , I bet Pink Floyd didnt make any money when they started out so all these musicians complaining about not being able to make a living, perhaps it is because they simply arnt good enough yet.
A good musician/band plays to an audience, a bad one plays to an empty house.
Personally I think a lot of people like Pink Floyd because of what they are and represent and not for what they play, I think their music is mundane boring drivel and they are flogging a dead horse and have been for 30 years or more, there is only so much gazing into empty space in tune to depressing music and long winded guitar solos that a person can do.
In my own personal opinion from my own experience with them, I'm sure Pink Floyd dont have this effect on everyone.
They really needed to get over Sid Barrett but couldnt, then Waters tried to sack everyone and to be fair they should have left it there.
Edit - sorry for rambling guys, Just an Ex Floyd fan throwing in a tuppence worth.
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
Two reasons.
1. Accepting a 75% cut in royalties hurts everyone, across the board.
2. For well established bands, their product has a rather inelastic demand, regardless of price point. IOW, demand and album sales have proven to be stable, whether their albums are priced at $15, $10, or $5. It makes little sense to discount your royalty stream 75% to increase your album sales by 2%.
1. Accepting a 75% cut in royalties hurts everyone, across the board.
2. For well established bands, their product has a rather inelastic demand, regardless of price point. IOW, demand and album sales have proven to be stable, whether their albums are priced at $15, $10, or $5. It makes little sense to discount your royalty stream 75% to increase your album sales by 2%.
That's pretty funny.
Interesting viewpoint on Pandora et al
I read this today and found it very interesting (and I hope relevant to the thread)…
I think it is worth a read and I agree with the concluding thought.
http://theunderstatement.com/post/53867665082/pandora-pays-far-more-than-16-dollars
I read this today and found it very interesting (and I hope relevant to the thread)…
I think it is worth a read and I agree with the concluding thought.
http://theunderstatement.com/post/53867665082/pandora-pays-far-more-than-16-dollars
He, again, never hid the fact that he was talking about song-writing credits.
Lapslah
Super Member
Maybe this has already been mentioned - I didn't read the whole thread to get here.
Everyone knows that it's a very rare breed of musician who "makes it" to the level of success Pink Floyd has enjoyed. I'm sure those guys will survive on the reduced residuals. But as far-removed as they may be from the struggling musicians out there, they probably still understand what a struggle it is for most of us, even if only in a hypothetical sense. The little guys have virtually no influence on the way they are compensated, but when Pink Floyd steps up and points out an injustice, it gets press. Many would call me naive, but I choose to believe that they are speaking out, not for themselves, but because they know they are the only voice many less-fortunate musicians out there have.
Everyone knows that it's a very rare breed of musician who "makes it" to the level of success Pink Floyd has enjoyed. I'm sure those guys will survive on the reduced residuals. But as far-removed as they may be from the struggling musicians out there, they probably still understand what a struggle it is for most of us, even if only in a hypothetical sense. The little guys have virtually no influence on the way they are compensated, but when Pink Floyd steps up and points out an injustice, it gets press. Many would call me naive, but I choose to believe that they are speaking out, not for themselves, but because they know they are the only voice many less-fortunate musicians out there have.
+48V
hi-fi or die
It’s complicated, but the short answer to your question here is yes, it (a compulsory license) does not apply.
In the example you provided referring to PF’s willingness to negotiate…you linked to a Pink Floyd song, album, download, or CD offered for sale though Amazon (can’t remember which ---the link has since been removed). ?
Digital downloads for sale on Amazon, iTunes, etc,. as well as interactive streaming services like MOG, Spotify, etc.. are required to obtain the master rights to the actual sound recording. While the rights to the musical composition (lyrics & notes) can be obtained under a compulsory license, the rights to the sound recording must be obtained directly from the record label and/or artist. Typically it’s the record label who owns the master rights.
So while it may appear that these services are being much “nicer” to rights holders by asking their permission….the fact is, under the law, they have no other choice but to negotiate directly.
Webcasting and non-interactive streaming is a different critter when it comes to how royalties are determined and collected.
