[hexis]

On some days, I wish companies like Pandora, Spotify, and Rdio would just voluntarily shut down. If the music industry thinks streaming companies are ripping them off, the music industry is welcome to build their own streaming business and show everyone how it's done.

Musicians were complaining about royalties and payment long before the internet was invented and they'll be complaining long after we're all gone. Keep that in mind when they act like streaming is the new scourge of music.

[thijsc]

Spotify is owned partially by the music industry: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/aug/17/major-...

I'm sure the labels are very happy to keep making the same margins they used to with these new distribution channels. The music industry is doing fine here, it's just the artists who are getting a small piece of the pie.

[dtf]

Maybe this is the crux of the issue. The labels would like to shut down the competition and control the channel as did before. It would explain the PR blitz.

[bjelkeman-again]

Indeed. Pay to play, every singe time things are played they want you to pay, and be in control. What is missing often from these discussions is that a lot of bands and musicians could deal direct with a service like Spotify. But that would cut the record companies out of the loop and hey are fighting this tooth and claw. So they essentially have a cartel controlling Spotify and making sure the pressure is on for the rest of the industry. It will be interesting to see them end up in the middle, making millions as they have manoeuvred themselves into controlling something hat could hav been an efficient market with few middlemen.

[k-mcgrady]

I don't think the music industry has a problem with streaming (Pink Floyd who started this renewed debate yesterday just got added to Spotify). The problem is that Pandora wants royalties cut - because their business model doesn't work. If they can't afford to distribute the product they need to raise prices or shut down. They can't make the producer look like the bad guy. Trying to get the producer to lower prices because your business model is a failure is ridiculous.

[badclient]

Try to make the distributor pay you disproportionate to what consumers are willing to pay for your product(music) is fucking ridiculous.

[route66]

Disproportionate would be more than 100%. As you said: the consumers are willing to pay a certain amount. A share of that amount can never be "disproportionate". Are you demanding the same humbleness of yourself when you negotiate your salary?

[badclient]

It is disproportionate given Pandora, after all is said and done, is yet to turn a profit. If Pandora was making millions or billions in income, its easier to argue they ought to pay a larger share to the musicians.

[k-mcgrady]

No one's arguing they should pay a larger share - just that they shouldn't pay less than they are currently paying.

[nknighthb]

And yet no one has explained why they shouldn't pay less than they are currently paying, when their competition pays far less.

[robryan]

Really it is a pretty horrible business to be in. You are totally at the mercy of the publishers, should you be really successful at customer acquisition and monetizing then you will be rewarded with higher royalties.

As it stands I don't see how it would be possible for Pandora to ever do better than small profits.

[whiddershins]

How do we know what consumers are willing to pay? How do we know this is a fixed number and can't be altered by other factors?

[k-mcgrady]

Not when you have plenty of other avenues to get revenue from and cutting off this specific one own't have much impact on you.