Has anyone come up with a letter that someone could use as a template for this issue?

I'm finding it difficult to succinctly articulate the issue in a letter to my rep's in Congress.

Move to Europe. The RIAA can't bankrupt you there. Make friends with Last.fm while you're over there.

There's a letter template over at: http://www.savenetradio.org/ (under the first bullet).

Is Pandora affected by this??? Acording to the cited blog -- the new rules don't apply to "interactive" webcasters.

This letter looks like a good example: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=1088793686

It's a good idea to send RIAA a couple of links to some good internet radios (including this one!) and show this actually helps the music business. Big time.

Is it possible to get EFF involved? With their help, the message may get louder and stronger.

This really ruined my day. Surely there is a way around this, such as moving your operation overseas.

Thanks for the comments, folks. Re. Peter B.'s post, these affect ALL webcasters with an ad-supported service. They definitely affect us. Tim (Founder)

If they weren't so blind, they'd actually realize that internet radio promoted artists. But I guess, all they see is green - such that they just overlook it all.

http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9461656&content_dir=ua_congressorg&mailid=custom

Amazing... I was stunned to hear about this the other day. It reminds me of the 'pauper jails' where they would arrest people who couldn't pay taxes thinking that would increase revenue.

Crazy

Here is an online petition that you can sign. Please sign up if you agree at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/

It states:

As a fan of Internet radio, I was alarmed to learn that music royalty rates were recently determined by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) which, if enacted, would certainly silence most or all of my favorite online listening services. For most webcasters, this royalty rate represents more than 100% of their total revenues!

The shuttering of the webcasting industry would be a loss for not only independent business owners, but also for musical artists, for copyright owners, and for listeners like me who enjoy the wide variety of choices available via Internet radio.

I respectfully request that Congress look into this matter and initiate action to prevent it. As the CRB rate decision is retroactive to January 1, 2006, please understand that time is of the essence -- as the immediate impact of this decision could silence many free Internet radio stations forever.

In any case, I wouldn't be too optimistic and assume that a reasonable decision on appeal will be forthcoming.

If I were running a webcast, I think it would be prudent to prepare a "poison pill" just in case. Forcing an entire industry into bankruptcy is something that has happened before and will happen again. (e.g. in transportation it was the ICC rulings and the Penn-Central merger) I have heard some people observe that suing under fair-trade practices via NAFTA may be feasible (if you move internationally), although I think this is a stretch.

In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it...) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkable.

What did you think would happen? With RIAA raids on businesses for mixtaping by their own member-artists, with the Pirate's Bay getting raided illegally in Sweden (outside US jurisdiction)-- what do you think would happen?

The Big Labels will stop at nothing, even if you try to appease them. I have never downloaded music illegally, but with the confusing rash of laws anyone may find themselves harrassed and baselessly sued, either individuals or companies.

Don't expect fair play, non-DRMed tracks, or ethics.

As a last resort, I would seriously consider dumping your company's music files into a data repository overseas. Be sure to make backups-- I'll see you on the other side.

I will make my best to help.

Sucesso para voc�s!!

Roberto from Brazil.

This will even affect those that aren't ad-supported. I run a small hobby radio station and this will surely shut down my station!

I read an article about this in today's Wall Street Journal (3.7.07), and quite frankly, am sickened. Pandora isn't my only Internet radio destination. For me there's also Radio Paradise, SOMA FM, and many others. And that's the point -- options, creativity, and diverse independent music! Please avail yourself of the options on these sites, particularly Radio Paradise, for signing the online petition and contacting your Congressional representative. It's ridiculous that on one hand Congress would consider banning the merger of Sirius and XM Radio due to concerns about limiting listener choice, and at the same time let these royalty rates pass. Pandora people, I haven't logged onto the home page yet, but am hoping you create a link (if you haven't done so already) to create attention to this situation.

I will write my representatives.

Another suggestion: Any of you who have purchased music from the independent studios or artists you have found on Pandora (or elsewhere on the internet)should go to the contact links on their web sites,let them know where you found their music and ask them to weigh in against this - with both RIAA and the congress.

Obviously, RIAA is captive of the big producers, or they wouldn't be trying to kill off the only effective free advertising available for these independent labels.

I'll let my reps know. But plan for the worst. What do you think of Aruba?

Why laws in another country have to affect me and everyone else otside???

Internet radio supports new artists making music market hard to control by transnational music labels.They think that in a near future they wont be able to manipulate music trends any more (maybe they alredy have loose control) .
Don't forget that they are loosing audience on his media due the lack of good options
I mean has anyone listened how bad music is in air wave radio9stations thse days

Like Steve I really enjoy Pandora and other Internet radio stations like Radio Paradise. I'm including a link to the online petition I've already signed in case it can help. http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html

The world is run by those who GET INVOLVED, so do all you can to stand up and keep Internet radio alive!

I want others to use this letter that I made as a template because I'm only 14 years of age and cannot send this for you have to be of 18 years or older for them to take you seriously. This letter was based off another but I made it more clear and added more points. Here it is:

Dear Senator // Congressman ____________,

As your constituent and a fan of internet radio, I was alarmed to learn that music royalty rates were recently determined by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) which, if enacted, would certainly silence most, if not all, internet radio services.

Internet radio services meet the needs of smaller, diverse listening markets that are simply ignored by mainstream media outlets. In my opinion, Internet radio is performing a social good by encouraging diversity of choices and opinion, promoting variety and competition, and providing a forum for alternative and independent artists who would otherwise have little to no opportunity for exposure.

Small webcasters should be supported in their efforts to provide these services, not squeezed out of existence by unfair, unrealistic royalties. A tiered royalty structure based on percentage of revenue or number of listeners seems far more equitable than the flat royalty-per-performance approach now mandated by CRB.

I respectfully request that your office look into this matter and initiate action to prevent it. As the CRB rate decision is retroactive to January 1, 2006, please understand that time is of the essence - as the immediate impact of this decision could silence many Internet radio stations forever.

Visit www.pandora.com if you would like to see an example of a well-built online radio station. This station shows how sites like this could help record companies benefit. Pandora does so by directing consumers to legal places where they can purchase the albums they like.

I also believe that the CRB rate decision would actually reduce the income of the record companies, not help them. In conclusion, creating a more equitable rate law would help everyone. That would be for the better for everyone, not just online radio listeners such as myself.

Sincerely,
Carlos

Note: Replace “Carlos” with your name. Yes, I actually have to mention this because many people are simply going to copy and paste this into an e-mail or over highlight it and print it out. Replace the “____________” with your congressman’s // senator’s name.

p.s. I don't think Pandora should move to another contry, I think you guys should stay and fight. Help out by faxing // sending a letter to your state representative and senator. My email is evil[dot]kencat[at]hotmail[dot]com, that's evil.kencat@hotmail.com; email me if you have any comments and/or questions.

Can't you just host your servers out of another country? Or I am being naive? It seems to me that when one country passes laws regarding the internet they can be pretty easily sbverted by just relocating the information.

I too hope that some sanity prevails. I've purchased music specifically because I heard it on Pandora. The recording industry has a strange way of cultivating its audience, though. Sue them, and charge them exhorbitantly. If they had ANY sense, they would realize this will have the opposite effect of what they want. I can only hope the the judges behind setting these rates will see what a foolish move this is.

Before I ask my question, a quick disclaimer: I think RIAA is badly misguided, DRM is sheer idiocy, and hit-driven business models in music are circling the drain. Hope this reduces the flaming.

Here's my question: isn't any company free to charge any prices for its products, unless it's a monopoly. Do the Big Four have a monopoly on music? If not, is charging Web stations and not charging terresrtial stations illegal? BTW, is it really true that terrestial stations pay nothing? That's hard to believe.

If there's no monopoly and these new rates are not otherwise illegal, how can anyone argue that they are too high? Isn't it a bit like saying "I've wanted a Ferrari all my life but can't afford it. These evil Ferrari dealers have made millions of small-time dreamers like me miserable."

Maybe it's time for a real support for Creative Commons music.

Guys, something important I've learned in my American Government class (particularly since both my teacher and a student have worked in the government, and both have said this)--

If your congressmen and women get the same exact letter over and over again, it doesn't count for much. The interns will make a note of it, but it probably won't see your rep.
If you send a letter that is your own original thoughts, it will mean that you CARE ENOUGH TO SPEND THE TIME TO WRITE YOUR OWN LETTER. That speaks VOLUMES to a Rep, and it has a much, MUCH higher chance of reaching them personally!!

Also, remember that even if your a kid, your writing could still help--kids have a lot of influence on parents these days, as well.

Don't worry if you think your letter "isn't intelligent enough." Writing an original letter shows you care enough to spend the time to do it--particularly in this day and age, where the art of letter writing is more rare. It'll still matter more, even if you think it doesn't "sound as nice."

I'll be writing, too.
~Haley

Tim,
Could you give a more concrete example of how this fee structure will 'kill' internet radio. The way I figure it, if a listener hears 15 songs each hour at $.0011 per song, and never ever stops listening to pandora, it would cost about $144 in licensing each year. Currently you are charging $36 for a full year subscription. What would be a reasonable fee structure?

I listen every night and have discovered and purchased releases by many artists (e.g., Fancey, Marmalade) specifically because of hearing them here. Best of luck in this struggle!

This is awful news... Is there anything we can do to help from Ireland???

I've worked in my Congressman and Senator's D.C. offices, and staffers will notice and appreciate YOUR OWN writing, helpful information on the subject (most staffers are responsible for a ton of subjects), and exactly what you'd like them to do. I wrote this up from the few sources Pandora gave me. Feel free to copy and adapt it.
---

I oppose the recently revised fee schedule for internet radio by The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) [http://www.loc.gov/crb/].

It's formal title is: Determination of Rates and Terms for Webcasting for the License Period 2006-2010 in [Docket No. 2005-1 CRB DTRA] Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral Recordings

This ruling drives the licensing fees (fees that are NOT paid by terrestrial broadcasters) "completely out of reach," according to Pandora radio station, the popular internet radio service I listen to daily. Please find out more, and actively support a repeal.

The decision will be published in the Federal Register within 60 days. Appeals may be filed with the US Court of AppeaIs in Washington, DC within 30 days of Federal Register publication. "As this decision may well significantly impact webcasters, large and small, there is no doubt that more will be heard on this decision in coming months." said lawyers from the international communications law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Here's a good summary from the firm about the ruling. They promise to have more details on this decision in coming days.
http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/internet-radio-copyright-royalty-board-releases-decision-rates-are-going-up-significantly.html

This is an issue I care a lot about and I hope you will not slap me with a form letter.

Thank you very much for your time.

@ Adam -- you can listen to Pandora in Ireland?

I just wanted to support the sentiments of many posts so far: This site has introduced me to artists I never would have found through other means; and my CD purchasing has increased dramatically since I joined. This is a bizarre and irrational move on the part of the RIAA. At the very least, they should track statistics for listen vs. Amazon/ITunes purchase via Pandora for a few weeks.

Can anyone explain to me what is really going on here? It makes sense for businesses to charge what the market will bear - even if that is exorbitant. It makes no sense to set one's prices so high that customers cannot pay them. Now, if allowing Internet radio to play music caused the recording industry to lose money (as through increased production costs), it might make sense for it to set royalties artificially high to compensate. But allowing Internet rebroadcast is not, in any way I can understand, costly to the music producers. What gives?

I've heard the theory that, like Microsoft, the RIAA is pure evil, under direct orders from Satan. I just don't believe it. Corporations don't do things just to be mean - they're trying to make money. What is the gain to destroying Internet radio, especially when loss of current royalty revenue is involved? (I could understand that broadcast radio might feel their lot would be better if Internet radio were gone, but I've never heard that broadcast radio has the clout to push something like this through, other than from the conspiracy theorists who think that the RIAA are actually in control of commercial radio.)

Does anyone have a theory about what motivates this other than a devil/conspiracy theory? (I'd be inclined to believe that it was just the tendency of bureaucracies to behave stupidly, but in this case it seems they know what they're doing, and it's something more than a stupid blunder.)

- Alan -

I suspect that the RIAA intends to use this as a bargaining chip for "more reasonable" rates. "Reasonable" in this case being crippling, but not fatal.

And yes, the approval of the CRB for these rates is atrocious but may be some sort of reverse-logic. We can only hope.

@Gene Linetsky, I don't understand your question. Pandora can be listened in any country. I'm from Spain and I've listened to it daily for the last year...

Any news on a congressional hearing about this subject?

Alan, the members of the RIAA may have finally decided to begin their own online services and need to push out the current providers to eliminate competition, but that is just a theory. This is a perfectly sane tactic but our govt should be protecting competition, not killing it, so I guess there is some bureaucratic blunder going on too.

Zachary,

The problem isn't necessarily the per song price. The real killer for pandora (I assume) is the $500 per station minimum. We have the ability to have 100, assuming you've maxed your account that's $50,000 per member. Unless of course they'll charge for deleted stations too. Plus any songs. Do they have to be royalty's on skips or only completely played songs? I don't know how much money Pandora makes off of referal purchases, but I'm assuming it is a lot less thatn $50,000 per user per year. That doesn't leave any room for expenses. That is why it sucks, and the price structure per perfomrance will more than double to .0019 per performance in 2010. Oh yeah, the retroactive payments for last year are going to be a real kick in the teeth also. This is bascially league financial genocide of an industry.

@Lek: http://blog.pandora.com/faq/#79

Looks like you're breaking the law, or Pandora does, or both :)

Thanks for the continuing great comments, everyone. A few points to clear up.

1. Regarding RIAA an indie music. There's no all-indie option for Pandora. We pay these rates for all music, regardless of whether it's on a label or not.

2. Regarding the price setting. Adam, you're certainliy right that someone selling music has the right set any price they want. But to understand this, you need to understand the overall picture. The RIAA represents a VERY thin sliver of the music industry. This ruling was aimed at benefiting the small collection of label-backed artists that constitute the entirety of what is played on existing broadcast and satellite radio channels. And while we believe even popular artists are terribly harmed by this (as Alan Beale articulates well above), it is a crushing blow to the tens of thousands of artists just beginning to be heard through internet radio who will once again be muffled and relegated to obscurity. Radio is the most potent promotional channel for musicians, period. It's where people discover new music. The explosive growth of internet radio has been a direct result of listeners' frustration with the homogenization and consolidation of playlists. Pandora plays the music of over 30,000 artists. 75% of the songs played on Pandora are from musicians whos music sales rank on Amazon.com is greater than 10,000! Does anyone really think that shutting Pandora and other webcasters down is good for them?... this is there ONLY chance for exposure, AND they're getting paid.

3. Regarding the per song and per station fee. We're convinced the $500 fee is just being misconstrued and will hopefully be clarified as an adminstrative minimum per webcaster, not station. The REAL problem are the per song rates that make webcasting unviable.

This is upsetting having recently become a big fan of this site. I wonder how similar this is to the pricing structure for broadcast radio stations? Also, I'm wondering how this affects Internet radio stations broadcasting from countries other than the US? If I load up pandora.co.uk, for example, is someone from the RIAA going to be tracking me?

Who figures out the user count per song, anyway? Does the burden of providing usage stats to the RIAA go to the broadcasters as well? If so, I'm hoping they can at least charge to recover their costs in such a measure. Something along the rate of .0012 cents per user per song, perhaps.

One more comment. Pandora is NOT legal for listeners outside the US. We can play music from anywhere, but can't serve listeners that are not located in the US. It's entirely a licensing issue. It's the reason we require a US zip code at registration.

In order for a service to stream outside the US it has to have direct licenses with all the rights holders.

Tim (Founder)

Wow, I'll definitely try to help, and spread the word.

For those interested in more background on the issues, in the week since the decision, I've posted much more information on our blog. For all our recent posts on the Copyright Royalty Board decision on the Internet Radio royalties, and its probable impact, you can go to http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/cat-internet-radio.html

Several years ago I tuned to my favorite online music station to find it was only broadcasting tropical waves on a beach (no music), for one day, to call everyone's attention to some impending legislation. They suggested writing to one's reps.

I had never heard of the legislation but I instantly fired off emails to my congress reps (and got a detailed response from at least one). The legislation either didn't pass or was repealed, and the station didn't have to shut down.

Just a thought. It would spur a lot of people to action.

And (no kidding) I purchased 2 tropical wave crashing CDs since, after listening to that all day, began to see how relaxing this was. Yeah, internet radio promotes artists (nature recording engineers in this case)

Is anyone so surprised about this? The record labels feel that the value of music is higher than gold. There is a reason that WKRP In Cincinnati on DVD has been severely delayed. It's because they have to change most of the music in the show because the amount of money the labels want for a license is so high it makes releasing the DVD impossible at a price a consumer is willing to spend. It's why the past few Married With Children DVD sets no longer use Love & Marriage by Sinatra at the beginning. I mean do they really think that the music affects the shows that much?

I hope the RIAA continues to shoot themselves in the foot. It just educates more musicians to not sign contracts with them and go to labels that are actually consumer friendly like Nettwerk, Merge, Vagrant, Beggars Banquet, Victory, V2, Epitaph and Touch and Go.

Wait... hold on just one little minute eh?

� Why are we writing to Congress?
The government is the classic LEAST effective way to get any thing done 'cuz they are just a bunch of wankers!

Why we not instead write to the RIAA and explain them the plain $imple fact that many many way many of us first find the musics that we BUY via the internet now that consolidation has KILLED commerical and FM radio.

With this recent move the RIAA is not just shooting itself in the proverbial foot... They are shooting off both feet & part of they legs too, by golly! What doofs!

Congress is typcally so boggged down in navel gazing issues like getting re-elected that they are mis- or UNDER-informed about issues such as this.

Try this example: your have a next door neighbor who typically plays his music too loud... whether you share his peculiar taste in tune-age or not, it's annoying because you cannot control the volume or when it comes on & goes off. So you object. What do you do? Call the cops? Some folks do that. Alternate solution: aproach that next door neighbor: 'Hey bro - I likes the musics too mon, but not when I'm trying to study/sleep/meditiate/whatever - so can't you put on your headphones for a bit maybe? I'd gladly do the SAME for you?" THE point being: quicker, mo better response if you go to the SOURCE than to a 3rd party...

Hey there RIAA cats... you shut off the possibility of internet radio & you cut OFF a GREAT way to expose more peeps to more music and THAT cuts YOU off from future revenue stream you'd otherwise benefit from... WTF? Buy an effing clue already!

Copy THAT and use it as a letter to the RIAA...
IF it suits your style. Plain & direct.

Hope my contibution adds to the mix.

Ever onward!

Please don't leave, I love you :(

Last Friday I posted an article in the Music & Media section of TheRegister.com called How to Save Internet Radio. In my view, the issue is not merely the amount of the license fees to be charged under the CRB decision. The labels don't really care how much they can earn from webcasting; although the level of the license fees is surely very important to the webcast community. Rather, the labels are using unreasonably high license fees as a means to suppress Internet Radio to the greatest extent possible. The labels seek this result because they see Internet Radio as a threat to their traditional sales-based revenue model. (Thus, for example, we have the harshly anti-webcasing provisions of the DMCA itself, including program content restrictions and business model limitations built into the statutory license.) What we need now is an alternative to the music industry's sales-based revenue model; one that would allow webcasting to flourish rather than to be put out of business. I suggest such an alternative in the article and in a White Paper that is linked from the article. I hope you find something in my work to help you save Pandora.

This makes no sense! I have tried listening to a variety of music that I would never have heard of if I just listened to FM radio. I like that I can bounce a song if it's not favorable to me. I will definity write to congress and the RIAA. I have bought CDs from artist and genres I would never had dreamed that I would like...and my spending puts money in the pockets of these asses who are trying to outlaw it.

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

A few more replies:

In terms of specific action - we're still working on what the best next steps are, so stay tuned. It does seem that legislative intervention is the best option, and that's going to take a great collective action from everyoen.

Re. the comparison with other radio mediums. This royalty is a fee that is not paid by broadcast radio, and would be five times the fee paid by satellite radio.

In terms of accounting, Pandora keeps track of EVERY song we play, every day and provides the list to SoundExchange every month for billing purposes. We write them a monthly check.

Tim (Founder).

@Gene Linetsky: Since Pandora is on the wild, it can be accessed from anywhere around the world. I think I'm guilty... :)

@Tim: Then, I'm breaking Spanish law because of hearing music without paying?? It's good... I love Pandora more than before :D

Come to Berlin! It's cheap and you'll find lots of educated people looking for an employer..

Hello!
I'm a Vietnamese. Did you toured whatever times? If not already please visit our country with Vietnam travel agency, Vietnam tour operator or Vietnam holiday.

It's pretty widely known that anyone can listen to Pandora, even if you don't live in the U.S.

All you have to do is input a U.S. zip code, Pandora doesn't even check your IP address! :)

I just started hearing the radio on line. I must tell you that I am very happy. I can be at work working of course and relaying to the music at the same time. It is very relaxing and I am getting more work done because I am enjoying what I am listening too. The different musicians and what ever songs or style of song I want. No commercials and it's FREE. Can't ask for more. Thanks for helping me throughout the day. :)

I was serious about moving overseas, but I realize that entails screwing over the little artists you're so passionate about promoting.

However, if you don't have the resources to defend your industry from legal challenge, you've got no business being in business, *in the US*. We're capitalists, and whoever has the most resources gets their way. You and the other webcasters must get together and hire a lobbying firm that has the ear of the individuals who are actually going to be voting on the legislation. Every other unpopular industry that has survived to maturity(alcohol, tobacco, the RIAA) has lobbyists that work full-time to keep them in business. That's how it works in the US. We're capitalists, and if you don't like it, you can leave.

In short, grow up. It's not fair that the people with the deepest pockets win, but that's the way it is and if you can't pay for the lobbyists necessary to keep you in business, you won't be in business for long. You know what must be done, so instead of crying about, step up and do it.

Now, where do I send my contributions, or should I just keep writing checks to the EFF?

Tim - Thanks for the blog to ask questions. You say that Pandora sends the name of "every" song you play to SoundExchange. Does the new (and retroactive) royalty fee structure apply then, to **every** recorded song on Internet radio music stations no matter how old a song or recording, or what artist or what kind of music it is?

Classical, big band-standards, jazz, country, heavy metal, rock, the 30's - 40's - 50's pop music tracks are all equally included? And, all artists and orchestras no matter if they are big names on the charts or new artists not recognized yet? Big name labels and independent labels alike?

Seems to me that the only way for webcasters and small, net radio stations to avoid those greedy royalty payments (in addition to paying legitimate ASCAP, BMI and SESAC fees) is for the streaming to go from commercial to non-commercial! Is that an option for the little guy to stay in business with online music formats?

The CRB has apparently lost the real point that the more the music is played and heard, the more likely it is that the music sampled is purchased. Maybe no one else remembers the old record stores with 78rpm disc in racks for sale - and there were one or more "listening rooms" where potential customers could take the discs they liked to audition into these little, soundproof rooms to listen to their hearts content.

Sometimes we'd spend an entire Saturday afternoon with a "stack of wax" - well, the store did not charge us for the auditioning time, nor for how many 78rpm discs we took into the booth. We played the music and decided what to buy and put the discs back into the rack - by hearing what title looks good made the difference to buy or not to buy. (Records were 50 to 78 cents each then, my whole weekly allowance.)

So, consider the streaming music as the listening booth and, if the track being heard on the computer or via WiFi can be purchased with a link to the "record store" while the listener is hearing it - ca-ching!! A sale (or download) is made!! The record label, the artist, the musicians, the composer, everyone gets - - money because the sampling made the decision to purchase. The radio station also is paid a small percentage of the sale by the customer for putting the music track up online. See? Everybody wins-wins. Anyone else's thought?

PS// Is there a list of all the record labels in this CRB decision who are promoting this new fee structure, or is just a few of the majors. Thanks.

I've written my Congresspeople... this is absurd. Actually, as a serial entrepreneur and MBA, I don't even think it makes business sense. (I wrote about that some at http://wadearmstrong.com/archives/business/the_recording_industry_is_clearly_not_taking_my_advice.php.) Crazy! I don't understand why they could have it in for something as good for music as Pandora.

as the Suspected Collective have said:

"Hey, FUCK THE RIAA"

I've written letters to both Senators and my Representative regarding this issue and will post their replies (or lack thereof) on my website for anyone's who's interested.

I'd like to mirror some of the comments made by others: move your servers to Russia and comply fully with Russian Copyright Law. If the RIAA makes it unpalatable to operate within the United States, do so elsewhere. That's one of the advantages of a Global Economy.

On an off-topic thread, do you have any plans on offering a plug-in for the popular desktop media players to create playlists of music that we (as individuals) have on our hard drives based on data in your database? That'd rock!

- www.JoeLevi.com

This gets me so angry but it's like #534 in order of importance on the list of battles that need to be fought. How are all these wealthy, lawyer-composed entities able to own politicians and destroy our country so systematically? Internet radio is something I love, but the war is worse. And other things are worse as well. I think this is just another straw on the camel's back--that camel being the current lobbying situation in the USA. While I I think a fight on this particular issue is valid, we need a more holistic solution to what's allowing all these actions that are in opposition to the best interests of Americans.

I can honestly say that i've purchased nearly 20 CDs from artists I only learned about through Pandora. Please keep Pandora alive!! I personally believe it benefits the RIAA more than they may think already.

U know what screw the RIAA. Tim - why dont u guys just move ur servers out of the US. I don't think the RIAA can touch u outside the US? Also try to get some support from some of the major musicians in different genres. Counter the RIAA with ur own lobbying tactics or use loopholes in the laws. We shud not stand for this kind of bullshit.

Damn the RIAA. I would have assumed that the fees would be subject to the owners of the songs, no? Why should the RIAA even have control over these sort of fees? If I want someone to pay, oh, 5 cents each time my song is played, why should the RIAA come in and say "no, 50 cents." Sorry, I guess I just don't understand this corrupt system well enough.

Continuing to read all of these comments with great interest and appreciation. Some more responses.

The retroactive payments are indeed for EVERY song we've played - regardless of genre, era, etc. It's a BIG bill...

Mr Gunn - appreciate the directness. This company was founded right when the tech bubble burst. We went over 2 years without taking salary, and still survived. We've dealt with far bigger hurdles, and beat them. We're small, but we're ferocious, and we believe intensely in what we're doing. We will not back down from this attempt so subvert us, and other webcasters. Plus now we've got 6 million friends...

Regarding the control of fees, it's not in the hands of the artists, unless they negotiate directly with webcasters (and only artists who own the rights to their work can do that, ie. not possible for most 'signed' artists). Though I certainly think this kind of ruling will make artists think twice before giving up control of their future to a larger organization... 70% of the songs we play come from albums who's sales rank on Amazon is below 10,000 - does anyone think a single one of those artists would want us to go dark?

Pandora is 100% supportive of musicians. 60% of our employees are professional musicians. This ruling is NOT in the interest of musicians. Numerous artist organizations have already begun protesting.... what more evidence do we need?

Hi Tim, and everyone else:

I've not really been following these legal developments too closely, and I haven't been able to find an answer to the following question. Maybe you can help me out:

Do all internet radio stations have to pay this fee, even if the stations are broadcasting only public domain / Creative Commons licensed music?

If so, that would be a very useful fact for trying to get the lawyers of the EFF / Creative Commons involved in this.

Colin - all stations do indeed have to pay this rate, unless they have a direct license from the artists. So yes, music that artists have made free to the public do not come with this fee (provided that the artist does own the rights to their work).

In terms of timing, it's hard to say. It seems that the appeal process will take several months. When that is completed, we'll know more. It's one week at a time right now...

Tim (Founder)

I think this Pandora tool is more valuable to music merchants than is is to consumers. Have you considered approaching Amazon or Apple with an offer of data on users' music preferences in exchange for financial backing? Surely Amazon could use this knowledge in its recommendation system, and Apple might be persuaded to enter into a joint iTunes/Pandora venture.

I'm very sorry to hear about your plight. My wife is an American citizen, and we both are fans of your service. It seems to me that what you folks at Pandora are doing is very special, and may inform industry trends of the future, if only people could get past this notion that they have to own the bits you are transmitting. I would imagine that a much fairer royalty rate would not be out of the question if the industry officials responsible for this egregious situation were made to understand that legitimate businesses who distribute music streams are not in fact giving away perfect copies of the music they transmit. It's just another form of music transmission.

Anyone who wants to listen to the same song on a regular basis either has to create a very small channel and rigorously dislike anything else that you suggest (which invalidates the experiment), or has to go out and buy the album. I don't think this model is failing to direct people to avenues where they can purchase the music, so I'm not at all sure what the RIAA and the CRB think they are doign here. Are they just misinformed as to how the service operates? Do they think you guys are giving out MP3s that anyone can play?

Perhaps just a little bit more information might educate them into realizing that this isn't like Napster or even MP3.com, and really shouldn't be treated the same way. People need specialized skills and technology to capture internet streaming performances permanently, and that's not really your problem either way. You're being tarred with the same feather that P2P and other sources of internet entertainment content are.

Sadly, as I am a Canadian citizen, I am not able to take part in the ptetitioning process. However, I believe I'll be asking my wife to do so at the earliest convenience.

Best of luck with your battle. I hope you manage to hang in there. Pandora.com is a very special service, and I look forward to this radio concept being in place for years to come. It can't happen anywhere else.

Hi Tim,

I hate to think it might be necessary for you, but please have a time to read this
http://www.secession.net/
http://www.secession.net/nv-action-methods.html

All what you are about to go is actually secession from labels and alikes. So you might actually need this one day.

Move the server to another country. What's the big problem here?

This is Kim from Shanghai, a Denish friend made me know your website, I'm lovein it !~~ I will tell my friends this site, keep doing good! we are here listening!~

Did a quick check while trying to see a way to fight this and found that the RIAA pac made fairly large contributions to two of my three representatives in Washington. I too am very tired of having bribrary such a large factor in my "reprentative" government. But, it's probably going to be a necessary evil for us to have a real chance to keep internet radio, since logic and fairness are no longer part of the fabric of our society.

Because of Pandora, I've discovered several CDs that I intend to buy from amazon.com

mafRIAA should be allowed to rise their fees however they want so that consumers will wake up and stop supporting the music that is affected by RIAA. That way producers will think twice if they want their music to be "protected" (but noone will listen to it) or they want it to be enjoyed by people.

THE GOVERNMENT AND RIAA ARE WRONG IN TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ON ARTISTS AND THEIR MUSIC. EVERYONE NEEDS MUSIC AND THERE ARE LEGITIMATE OPTIONS TO BETTER HANDLE THE PROBLEMS AT HAND IN
REGARDS TO ONLINE SHARING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WHILE ALSO
PROVIDING COMPENSATION FOR THE HARD WORKING BANDS AND ARTISTS.

GOING WITHOUT INTERNET RADIO MEANS MANY ARTISTS AND BANDS STAND
LITTLE CHANCE OF BEING DISCOVERED WHEREAS OTHERS WILL REACH LESS LISTENERS UTILIZING INTERNET RADIO FOR MUSIC BUYING PURPOSES WHICH CLEARLY MAY BE SEEN AS MONOPOLIZING OF MUSIC INDUSTRY WE MUST STOP THEM FROM STEALING OUR RIGHT TO SHARE WHAT WE BUY!

I'm not sure about the specifics, so I don't know if this would work:

It was mentioned that there is no "indie only" option on pandora. Would it be possible to make this an option for a "station"?

Could pandora make an indie only option and prove to the RIAA that we don't need their music?

I think that we're going to have to kill the RIAA off eventually (before they turn internet radio into another "clear channel"). I really think its time that we write them off, and listen to independent music only.

Seems like this would help pandora pay the bills, and would provide more support for independent artist at the same time.

Well.. maybe it's an idea to flea the US and go to for instance Europe - for instance in Holland downloading of music is entirely legal, sharing it is another issue. Using the current Pandora is, according to Dutch law, entirely legal except for lying about the zipcode. But censoring is on the way here as well: ISPs are blocking content regarding what some 'decisive group' conciders very questionable content. It has started with an issue almost everyone agrees with: child pornograpy but it's easy to see this will be broadened very quickly to antisemitism, terrorism, and also online music and video. Unfortunately the Netherlands has paved the way for quite some international internet laws which made their way to the US as well (like all those lunatic terrorism laws, you think the US Government invented those? Think again, they were already active in the Netherlands for a couple of years).

So, instead of being scared away from the RIAA it's important to fight the RIAA where it hurts the most: in the press. The Dutch counterpart of the RIAA came in troubled water due to press coverage, although not enough to stop their idiotery. Sites like Pandora are commercially very promising, not only for Pandora itself but especially for the record companies themselves, not only because the commercial success of Pandora is actually connected to the commercial succes of the record companies. What the RIAA tries to accomplish? It beats me but Kafkaian visions of the old Stasi's in Eastern Germany come to mind.

Sounds like taxation to me, and taxation without representation at that...

:-)

tea party anyone?

hi, i've been following the upsurge of indignation at this royalty ruling with some interest, because i seem to be on both sides of it. i have in the past made a somewhat meager living as a composer and performer, but have seen that entirely go away in the past couple of years. i understand that people want to listen to the radio, and in the past 20 years or so that i have had songs that were played on the radio, i actually got paid broadcast royalties (i'm talking college radio here, like maybe i made $1000 a year maximum. i don't understand tim's assertion that broadcast radio doesn't pay these royalties at all...?) but with the advent of satellite radio, where they purposely didn't make contracts with the performance rights groups for a couple years, they didn't pay for a while. now they do. same with internet radio. the petitions i am seeing are talking about the rates being raised 1000%, but we're talking 0.0008 cents per play as opposed to like 6 cents for broadcast radio, right? the problem is per listener division as i understand it. it would seem like a better way to do it would be a daily or weekly roundup of plays, but whatever, i'm not a mathematician (that title goes to other members of my band.)
take a look at the historical political economy of music (i recommend jaques attali's book "noise") and lets talk about how musicians can survive in society. everybody wants free music, in the past it had always been paid for by patronage, then for a short period of time with the advent of media replicaiton artists somewhat managed to be paid for their composition as it was manufactured. we seem to be back to the patronage model, composers are only paid for by patrons- advertisers, essentially. if you want free music, that's what you'll get: advertisements for the patrons.

A few things:

The point of writing a congressman is to get protections put into law, not just repeal the current fee system. Yes, that will help in the short term, but there needs to be some protection for business innovation. As was mentioned, it doesnt matter if the song played even comes from a RIAA member entity. I would be happy if i searched for Big Label bands, but only heard independants.

@jonathan: Broadcast radio is a radio frequency - there is no way to precisely tell how many listeners are tuned in. with a digital stream, you can precisely say which song, how many users and how often.

@all non us listeners: uh, hate to say it like this but, i'd welcome restrictions that would reverseDNS to prevent 'extra feeds' from leaving the US, so that the bill for Pandora would be smaller.

@Tim: Would it be possible for the lists of songs to be made public? Like you said, the RIAA (and by extension SoundExchange) only represent a small portion of the market. I'd be curious to see how frequently songs/artists are being played and ask a few of the artists themselves how much they get in royalties from SoundExchange.

Everyone: as well as writing your Congressmen, write the bands that you have purchased cds for - especially if they have not signed to a label yet. Urge them NOT to, and instead work out a license agreement with Pandora and the other internet radios directly. The RIAA is no longer needed to get the exposure to the music fans.

yet another reason to hate RIAA.

What would happen with sites that publishes stream from original sources such http://www.mediaplanetaria.com, which is an excellent site with thousands of online media.

The reason why the RIAA doesn't care about things like Pandora is because Pandora and LastFM etc are taking over the industry. Without the need of the RIAA they're losing a lot of money. Pandora and LAST FM give the power to the artists to distribute their own stuff when and how they want to, while that takes away from the RIAA (since that's all they really do...)

I love Pandora. I've lost track of the number of people I've turned on to it, and I've bought a lot of music I would probably not have even known about were it not for this site. Pandora has done everything it can, so far as I can tell, to behave ethically here, BUT, let's be fair about this. The entertainment content industries (for which I do not work and in which I have no investment) do have a legitimate gripe. We seem to have raised a generation of little socialists who think that they are entitled to have things they want whether they belong to someone else or not. The rationalizations I hear and read in defense of what is nothing short of the theft of intellectual property are breathtaking. Clearly the entertainment industries have missed the technological boat, and the legal system hasn't figured out how to cope. And sometimes the big studios do behave unethically themselves (see their treatment of writers and directors during current contract negotiations, for example). But the fact is that if we listeners and viewers grew a moral backbone and weren't trying to rip them off at every turn, a lot of this nonsense would just go away.

hopefully, well enjoy pandora for a long time as well as the RIAA decide to use it as a promotional media for all the artists avoiding by this kinda sites the enormous amount of illegal downloads accross the internet and help to enhance the consiusness (in the meanwhile) of thounsands of peer's users about the importance of purchasing legal music... and enjoy it!

dony kill pandora!!! help it!!!

I am a US citizen who signed up with Pandora with a paid subscription while living in the US, but then moved overseas. I still listen, and my $12 per quarter is billed to my US mailing address and official residence. I would be bummed if you stopped streaming overseas. I hope this issue is limited to the free/add-supported option. Please don't block the whole site; people like me would need to get access to cancel.

It would appear that the RIAA is trying to impose a cable-TV-like business model on internet radio, which would shut down the free add-supported approach, but will not shut down the industry. My money is on the RIAA to get their way -- they own the lawmakers in our erstwhile democracy, and that's all it takes.

I agree that .0011 per song is a bit high, since (assuming three minutes average per song) it comes to about $16 per month given 24/7 play. That is more than a typical premium cable channel like HBO (which you could theoretically run 24/7 on your TV set) even though you would think video would cost more than audio.

But (hate to admit it) it's only 2.2 cents per hour. Pandora could mark it up to three cents to cover costs, and charge on a pay-as-you-go basis, and people like me would still find it attractive. My $12 quarterly subscription would buy 400 hours, or just over four hours per day.

The RIAA accountants and consultants have undoubtedly run all the numbers five times over, and have a plan to maximize their revenue by squeezing Pandora to the minimum margin needed to survive, and driving the price up to the highest level listeners will bear. That strategy makes all the more sense for them if you assume the current industry model of record label as rights holder is destined to diminish or disappear no matter what. (Do you really think they can preserve that model by going soft on internet radio?) Milking their catalog for all it's worth will become the RIAA's primary business.

Do you live in Los Angeles (or, even better, specifically in the San Fernando Valley) and have an interest in this royalty issue? If so, I'd like to interview you. Please e-mail me at lisa.friedman@langnews.com or call 202-251-2083. Thanks!
Lisa Friedman
Washington Bureau
Los Angeles Daily News

Geez ! this is sad..u guys are doing.. just great job..

I just signed the petition and will try to add more support..

thanks,
Naval

I guess I don't understand why the RIAA is so worried about internet radio. Isn't it just the same as radio play except on a broader and more individualized basis? If so, wouldn't they realize it's in their best interest to have people listen to music that they have a high probility of liking and thus, BUY the CD?

Come and setup the stations in South Africa. No CRAP Lawes like that here. We like technoligy, not hate it like there countries. We may be a bit behind on speed but we will get there!!!!

So they, basicly want us all to just download the music p2p for free rather than listen to it on online broadcast. OK we will do it then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope everyone is getting out and calling their representives one more time..

This is typical RIAA-- a company that is supposed to represent artists, once again represents only corporate wishes.

It's typical �we don't like anything new� sort of thinking. They are honestly trying any way they can to ensure that the old ways of doing business stay, and any new or creative ideas get snubbed. Someone needs to make a movie about these guys, really, or write a book about how typically corrupt and sold out they are to whoever is paying them more money.

Really, there are few organizations in the world who get me more upset than these guys. I am a musician myself, and don't feel that they actually protect me-- they protect the big corporate boys, who are � incidentally � usually the same guys that also take advantage of people like me.

This totally upsets me, I actually struggle to react maturely when it comes to these guys and their latest corrupt little plans.

This reminds me of the 200 lawsuit over the royalties set by the famous webcaster-killer RIAA. The lawsuit was designed to put smaller, independent webcasters out of business. RIAA view the world and the Internet as a broadcast medium. So, they want to concentrate the creation of content to only a small number of "professional" content producers. Since then on and upon hearing this year�s rate, everything is getting worst. As a proof, 2007's rate is a 37.5% increase over 2006; 2008 and 2009's annual increases are about 28% per year; and 2010 adds another 5.5% increase.

Personally, this is plain and simple damaging to the industry. Small or big webcasting company, everything is effectively killing the world�s promotional vehicle. I wonder about the say of CRB regarding this matter.

It could have something top do with control. Control over hits and hypes. And with Pandora people could more and more discover, hopping from new song to new song, music completely unknown to them, guided by there own ears. It's great, but too personal. You don't sell records in large amounts this way when the people differ to much or when while listening experience developed, an active and curious ear.

If you like music, you don't want hits & hypes, you want good music. Sometimes you need a big company for that, but very often, you don't.

The misstake the law makes here is that the rules don't fit anymore. By following the rules you don't get the aimed results, the reason why these rules exists. The RIAA is too slow and does not see that they are destroying. Think about it; by discovering new music you get more experienced and assumable more interested people; so Pandora creates more public for more artists. The only thing you loose is control. Control over hits and hypes.

It's sad.

It would be great if Pandora can continue in Europe!

Tam
(Netherlands)

THE GOVERNMENT AND RIAA ARE WRONG IN TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ON ARTISTS AND THEIR MUSIC. EVERYONE NEEDS MUSIC AND THERE ARE LEGITIMATE OPTIONS TO BETTER HANDLE THE PROBLEMS AT HAND IN
REGARDS TO ONLINE SHARING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WHILE ALSO
PROVIDING COMPENSATION FOR THE HARD WORKING BANDS AND ARTISTS..

GOING WITHOUT INTERNET RADIO MEANS MANY ARTISTS AND BANDS STAND
LITTLE CHANCE OF BEING DISCOVERED WHEREAS OTHERS WILL REACH LESS LISTENERS UTILIZING INTERNET RADIO FOR MUSIC BUYING PURPOSES WHICH CLEARLY MAY BE SEEN AS MONOPOLIZING OF MUSIC INDUSTRY WE MUST STOP THEM FROM STEALING OUR RIGHT TO SHARE WHAT WE BUY!

I was wondering who do i contact to find out what fees i need to pay or where i contact to find this info to run my online radio. Is there a sight i can go to do this? I was told you can pay a serten fee and somone can handle your royaltys for you. please let me know

yet another reason to hate RIAA.

Response to Jo Wilson: I'm sure micheal moore would be happy to make a movie about this ;-)

ont he side of Pandora, recently moved from US to Holland and very very bummed about this move. RIAA is definitly stuck in the past with this one, and stuck in their wallets as well. Unfourtunatly never got to use Pandora personally, but saw through friends what It could do.
if the RIAA is reading this: THERES MONEY I WONT SPEND ON ARTISTS since I dont know about them

I'm wondering when RIAA will investiganting sites with scanned images, like dvd covers? It is illegal to?

If they think realistic, they would know, that all uf us promote artist....

RIAA is definitly stuck on great the past with this two, or stuck in their wallets as well. Unfourtunatly never got to use Pandora personally, but saw through friends what It could do.

I hate Riaa that kill online radio ! ! !

I have decided that for me, Pandora is pretty much the coolest thing since sliced bread.
Those pointy headed politicians better leave this stuff alone. any petition or anything that needs peoples signatures make sure it comes my way.

I love Pandora! Thanks

et another reason to hate RIAA.

Thanks for sharing this information with us. Now lets hate RIAA together...

Police in Canada will not arrest home p2p users. Maybe we should emigrate to Canada? :D

This reminds me of the 200 lawsuit over the royalties set by the famous webcaster-killer RIAA. The lawsuit was designed to put smaller, independent webcasters out of business. RIAA view the world and the Internet as a broadcast medium. So, they want to concentrate the creation of content to only a small number of "professional" content producers. Since then on and upon hearing this year�s rate, everything is getting worst. As a proof, 2007's rate is a 37.5% increase over 2006; 2008 and 2009's annual increases are about 28% per year; and 2010 adds another 5.5% increase.

I was wondering who do i contact to find out what fees i need to pay or where i contact to find this info to run my online radio. Is there a sight i can go to do this? I was told you can pay a serten fee and somone can handle your royaltys for you. please let me know.
It could have something top do with control. Control over hits and hypes. And with Pandora people could more and more discover, hopping from new song to new song, music completely unknown to them, guided by there own ears. It's great, but too personal. You don't sell records in large amounts this way when the people differ to much or when while listening experience developed, an active and curious ear.

It is good that someone writes articles which really matters something. Thank you for this article, it's full of knowledge which is hard to find in tons of rubbish in our famous world wide web. Regards and good luck!

he Dutch counterpart of the RIAA came in troubled water due to press coverage, although not enough to stop their idiotery. Sites like Pandora are commercially very promising, not only for Pandora itself but especially for the record companies themselves,

In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it...) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkable.

hey guys
i would like to know how i can get some songs you play on your radio and are so hard to get it , i tried to buy some of them on amazon, itunes or somewhere online but nobody has a couple songs i like, could you tell me how can i get those? or is there a capture software or something let me know
thx Armando Jorge

Pandora people could more and more discover, hopping from new song to new song, music completely unknown to them

Police in Canada will not arrest home p2p users. Maybe we should emigrate to Canada? :D

That's ridiculous. A few months ago my country's government (I am from Poland) has got a similar idea, but happily they didn't do anything.

ny petition or anything that needs peoples signatures make sure it comes my way.

I suspect that the RIAA intends to use this as a bargaining chip for "more reasonable" rates. "Reasonable" in this case being crippling, but not fatal.

yet another reason to hate RIAA.

I am a US citizen who signed up with Pandora with a paid subscription while living in the US, but then moved overseas. I still listen, and my $12 per quarter is billed to my US mailing address and official residence. I would be bummed if you stopped streaming overseas. I hope this issue is limited to the free/add-supported option. Please don't block the whole site; people like me would need to get access to cancel.

It would appear that the RIAA is trying to impose a cable-TV-like business model on internet radio, which would shut down the free add-supported approach, but will not shut down the industry. My money is on the RIAA to get their way -- they own the lawmakers in our erstwhile democracy, and that's all it takes.

I agree that .0011 per song is a bit high, since (assuming three minutes average per song) it comes to about $16 per month given 24/7 play. That is more than a typical premium cable channel like HBO (which you could theoretically run 24/7 on your TV set) even though you would think video would cost more than audio.

But (hate to admit it) it's only 2.2 cents per hour. Pandora could mark it up to three cents to cover costs, and charge on a pay-as-you-go basis, and people like me would still find it attractive. My $12 quarterly subscription would buy 400 hours, or just over four hours per day.

The RIAA accountants and consultants have undoubtedly run all the numbers five times over, and have a plan to maximize their revenue by squeezing Pandora to the minimum margin needed to survive, and driving the price up to the highest level listeners will bear. That strategy makes all the more sense for them if you assume the current industry model of record label as rights holder is destined to diminish or disappear no matter what. (Do you really think they can preserve that model by going soft on internet radio?) Milking their catalog for all it's worth will become the RIAA's primary business.

One of my best friends has made a living out of online radio. It gave him and his band an opportunity that would otherwise never have been possible. Is this happens in your country who is to say it is not going to have a flow on effect here in Aus. I am against it as much as you are!

Hi, In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkable.

I'll let my reps know, but plan for the worst.

I am a song writer/composer and sell and produce my own work. No record companies I did that scene in LA in the eighties and it was just as greedy then. I will continue to be played on indie radio. I like the RIAA the FBI got rid of the mob and now we RIAA, Homeland Security and Coptright Boards bought and paid for. Pirates arise. It's easy rent a hotel or motel room and stream baby on a dynamic DNS and you're cooking, They'll never find you. Move and be a pirate, governments have piracy.

It would appear that the RIAA is trying to impose a cable-TV-like business model on internet radio, which would shut down the free add-supported approach 2008 and 2009's annual increases are about 28% per year; and 2010 adds another 5.5% increase.

I suspect that the RIAA intends to use this as a bargaining chip for "more reasonable" rates. "Reasonable" in this case being crippling, but not fatal.

ont he side of Pandora, recently moved from US to Holland and very very bummed about this move. RIAA is definitly stuck in the past with this one, and stuck in their wallets as well. Unfourtunatly never got to use Pandora personally, but saw through friends what It could do.
if the RIAA is reading this: THERES MONEY I WONT SPEND ON ARTISTS since I dont know about them

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

I will write my representatives.

Another suggestion: Any of you who have purchased music from the independent studios or artists you have found on Pandora (or elsewhere on the internet)should go to the contact links on their web sites,let them know where you found their music and ask them to weigh in against this - with both RIAA and the congress.

Obviously, RIAA is captive of the big producers, or they wouldn't be trying to kill off the only effective free advertising available for these independent labels.

Thanks for sharing this information with us. Now lets hate RIAA together...

Police in Canada will not arrest home p2p users. Maybe we should emigrate to Canada? :D

Police in Canada will not arrest home p2p users. Maybe we should emigrate to Canada? :D is that funny?

I agree with You Football Manager lets hate RIAA together...

I must tell you that I am very happy. I can be at work working of course and relaying to the music at the same time. It is very relaxing and I am getting more work done because I am enjoying what I am listening too. The different musicians and what ever songs or style of song I want. No commercials and it's FREE. Can't ask for more. Thanks for helping me throughout the day. :)

Great comment guidelines. I think you�re on the right track here. Some of those comments should go somewhere else.

http://www.sevdaligeceler.com

In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it...) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkable.

But (hate to admit it) it's only 2.2 cents per hour. Pandora could mark it up to three cents to cover costs, and charge on a pay-as-you-go basis, and people like me would still find it attractive. My $12 quarterly subscription would buy 400 hours, or just over four hours per day.

Don't you get it. It's all about the big musicians. Internet radio gives the smaller bands a chance to possibly make it. The RIAA can't have that, this is the United States of America, where the rich man gets richer and the poor man stays poor.

I advise to put all your comments together and send some kind of postulate... save internet radio!

This reminds me of the 200 lawsuit over the royalties set by the famous webcaster-killer RIAA. The lawsuit was designed to put smaller, independent webcasters out of business. RIAA view the world and the Internet as a broadcast medium. So, they want to concentrate the creation of content to only a small number of "professional" content producers. Since then on and upon hearing this year?s rate, everything is getting worst. As a proof, 2007's rate is a 37.5% increase over 2006; 2008 and 2009's annual increases are about 28% per year; and 2010 adds another 5.5% increase.

Thanks for sharing this information with us. Now lets hate RIAA together...

The RIAA continues to protect corporate America, with no regard whatsoever to Art America.
Let's face it, the big record companies care very little (actually, nothing) for art. Music is a business not an art form. The RIAA is designed to protect the (so-called) business, not the art, nor the artists, nor the listeners. They like to think in strictly product-consumer terms, and they're going to dictate how the consumer must consume. If the consumer wants to listen to internet radio � too bad, that's not how the RIAA and the record companies want it. They want to tell us what to eat, and how to eat it. That's the bottom line. Just like the mp3 revolution, though, you really can't stop a good thing and someone somewhere will figure out a way of getting around it.
Maybe we should all set up virtual offices in South Africa or Russia, and run our internet stations virtually. I'm sure the RIAA won't be happy, but there's nothing they can do. And we still get to broadcast.

I agree also with You Football Manager lets hate RIAA together...

It would appear that the RIAA is trying to impose a cable-TV-like business model on internet radio, which would shut down the free add-supported approach, but will not shut down the industry. My money is on the RIAA to get their way -- they own the lawmakers in our erstwhile democracy, and that's all it takes.

It was a sad day when i came to work and discovered that Pandora had been killed to the international community, being that it was one of my main portals to new music and the last thread holding my sanity together at work! My days just became much longer...

The RIAA's actions anger me on several levels. Firstly I hate the fact that they purport to support the artists, as if art is their main concern and not money. If this were true then perhaps they would have increased the royalty to artists when they shifted to CD from vinyl and tape, greatly lowering unit production cost yet maintaining the same unit sale price. This act increased net profit greatly yet the artist did not see any extra money, nor did the consumer see a significant fall in prices. As g�zel s�zler put it earlier, this is not about the consumer or the artist. The customer is, apparantly, not always right.

Secondly it is infuriating that they use their money and full time lobbyists to undermine the public's will. It is evident in Western liberal democracy that democratic power actually goes to the highest campaign contributor and hardest working/bribing lobbyist. Yet to have it stare you in the face once again does not make it easier to swallow.

Thirdly, this is not just about greed (well in a sense it is) but actually about monopoly of the marketplace. While to the consumer the RIAA's line appears pig-headed and short-sighted, to the RIAA it is not: It has never been easier as an aspiring artist to spread music through such things as Pandora and LastFM, as well as p2p systems, and for independant labels and artits to have a fighting chance of competing. To the RIAA this is not acceptable; we are looking at an increasingly emasculated concetration of power trying to close off the avenues of communication they do not sanction, condone or benefit from. Where they used to very much control the means of production and distibution of music, increasingly it is possible for bedroom musicians and producers (such as myself) as well as indie labels to make a mark. One of the main tenets of capitalism is competition, but as has been proved time and again, this is a theory and many industries and businesses desire nothing more than a monopoly. However, they can't stop the tide. It is exactly their desire to maintain the status quo that led to them being far too slow to benefit from the digital revolution in its infancy.

Fourthly, there is nowhere on the RIAA site to post a strongly worded comment, methinks as they would be totally inundated. They do, however have a music player. How ironic!

The DMCA (the subject of my dissertation) has already been used to shut down spoof Scientology sites in their quest to suppress criticism. The company I work for has had many videos (that we own the copyright for!) deleted from youtube by over-zealous companies working on behalf of some of our same clients, and our youtube shutdown as a consequence. The burden of proof is not necessary any more, the DMCA scares businesses into caving if there is an alleged copyright infringement.

Finally, this trend sets a worrying portent for the future of information as whole, not just music and film. There are forces within governments and businesses around the world who firmly believe that they know what is best for us more than we do, and democracy is merely an irritating formality that must be paid lip service in the ruthless pursuit of their own aims.

It is a sad fact (that as a graphic designer I face every day) that were art and commercial interest collide, commercial interest is almost always victorious. We must not let that be the case.

The RIAA continues to protect corporate America, with no regard whatsoever to Art America.

It would appear that the RIAA is trying to impose a cable-TV-like business model on internet radio, which would shut down the free add-supported approach, but will not shut down the industry. My money is on the RIAA to get their way -- they own the lawmakers in our erstwhile democracy, and that's all it takes.

Fourthly, there is nowhere on the RIAA site to post a strongly worded comment, methinks as they would be totally inundated. They do, however have a music player. How ironic!

I must tell you that I am very happy. I can be at work working of course and relaying to the music at the same time. It is very relaxing and I am getting more work done because I am enjoying what I am listening too. The different musicians and what ever songs or style of song I want. No commercials and it's FREE. Can't ask for more. Thanks for helping me throughout the day. :)

I agree with You Football Manager lets hate RIAA together...

mafRIAA should be allowed to rise their fees however they want so that consumers will wake up and stop supporting the music that is affected by RIAA. That way producers will think twice if they want their music to be "protected" (but noone will listen to it) or they want it to be enjoyed by people.

I agree with you Basketball Manager lets hate RIAA .

"artists" stopped making music in the 70's. that's when labels stopped "finding" artists and started manufacturing them. look at any formulaic genre... boy bands, hair metal, gangsta rap, it's all manufactured.

if the world can just start "finding" music on it's own, there is little need for expensive management, expensive studio magic, and expensive proprietary formats. in short, there is little need for a music industry any more.

the RIAA and it's internet offshoot would just love for us to give up this internet nonsense and go back to letting the radio tell us what to buy and letting the music store tell us how to buy it.

Don't you get it. It's all about the big musicians. Internet radio gives the smaller bands a chance to possibly make it. The RIAA can't have that, this is the United States of America, where the rich man gets richer and the poor man stays poor.

but with the advent of satellite radio ?

RIAA - they are all about greed and look what greed is doing to America today. Satellite radio is here to stay especially when the merger is ok'd. Pandora should just move to another country like Canada or to the Islands. The Riaa only care about themselves.

All I can say is WOW! What has gotten into the mind of these people? Is this another business? Internet Radios have kept me sane throughout my day, almost every day. I�m an online home-based worker and what can be better than listening to Internet Radios? Now that some people are charging too much from them, what will happen to them in the future? They will surely die out. What will replace them? I don�t want to think that this is in relation to increasing the sales of iPods. Hopefully, those who are in the CRB will change their mind and realize that this is totally absurd.

NOW IT IS GOOD FRYDAY 2008,I just discovered this and was rockin to AC/DC what will happen? when and where is this, come to a head,??? email me lostndusa@netzero.net Steve

That's ridiculous. A few months ago my country's government (I am from Poland) has got a similar idea, but happily they didn't do anything.

All I can say is WOW! What has gotten into the mind of these people? Is this another business? Internet Radios have kept me sane throughout my day, almost every day. I�m an online home-based worker and what can be better than listening to Internet Radios? Now that some people are charging too much from them, what will happen to them in the future? They will surely die out. What will replace them? I don�t want to think that this is in relation to increasing the sales of iPods. Hopefully, those who are in the CRB will change their mind and realize that this is totally absurd.

as the immediate impact of this decision could silence many free Internet radio stations forever

NOW IT IS GOOD FRYDAY 2008,I just discovered this and was rockin to AC/DC what will happen? when and where is this, come to a head,??? email me lostndusa@netzero.net Steve

It is a sad fact (that as a graphic designer I face every day) that were art and commercial interest collide, commercial interest is almost always victorious. We must not let that be the case....

It's good to now what Riia do, but Riaa don't now how to stop all of this.

I think, it's a bad idea.

Great, thanks..

Internet broadcasting should not be distinguished from normal broadcasting. Both should have the same imposed licensing requirements. There is no reason for internet radio to be an exception to the rule.

good job and article, thanks you

Thx for the gerat stuff

thank you very good article and idea

good job article thx

Thank you from Poland

It's good to now what Riia do, but Riaa don't now how to stop all of this.

NOW IT IS GOOD FRYDAY 2008,I just discovered this and was rockin to AC/DC what will happen? when and where is this, come to a head,??? email me lostndusa@netzero.net Steve thanksssssssssssss

That's ridiculous. A few months ago my country's government (I am from Poland) has got a similar idea, but happily they didn't do anything.

Move to Europe. The RIAA can't bankrupt you there. Make friends with Last.fm while you're over there.

Very interesting article, thaks for it, good work!
It's good to now what Riia do, but Riaa don't now how to stop all of this.
Thans :)

It's good to now what Riia do, but Riaa don't now how to stop all of this.

Thanks you poland.Very nice

great 10x

good article

very good very nice thanks

Maybe we should emigrate to Canada? :D

It's this very bunch of garbage which has caused me not to buy any new CDs. I now only buy used CDs and a friend recently got me into collecting and restoring vinyl records. I refuse to let the Recording Idiots and A$$hole Association make another dime off me. I urge all my friends to screw the RIAA any way they can. The best way is to buy USED music discs so no more new money go into their war chests. I thought I heard that EMI was going to break all times with the RIAA? If more record companies follow suit this will fix their little red waggon. The RIAA is just a bunch of turds as far as I am concerned.

I can honestly say that i've purchased nearly 20 CDs from artists I only learned about through Pandora. Please keep Pandora alive!! I personally believe it benefits the RIAA more than they may think already.

I can honestly say that i've purchased nearly 20 CDs from artists I only learned about through Pandora. Please keep Pandora alive!!

I must tell you that I am very happy. I can be at work working of course and relaying to the music at the same time. It is very relaxing and I am getting more work done because I am enjoying what I am listening too. The different musicians and what ever songs or style of song I want. No commercials and it's FREE. Can't ask for more. Thanks for helping me throughout the day.

yet another reason to hate RIAA.

thanks you!!!

Congress needs to re-evaluate the royalty rate structure, taking into consideration the dynamic nature of business models like yours, that do the work of the labels strategically marketing their music to the right people; the people that actually want to listen to it.

I guess I don't understand why the RIAA is so worried about internet radio.

I have been looking for this information for days. Thanks a lot.

So, consider the streaming music as the listening booth and, if the track being heard on the computer or via WiFi can be purchased with a link to the "record store" while the listener is hearing it - ca-ching!! A sale (or download) is made!! The record label, the artist, the musicians, the composer, everyone gets - - money because the sampling made the decision to purchase. The radio station also is paid a small percentage of the sale by the customer for putting the music track up online. See? Everybody wins-wins. Anyone else's thought?

I don't know much about the hole RIAA but this station gets me thru the day and if I have to pay a SMALL fee so be it. Rumor has it that Pandora.com is'nt makeing the money it should because of fees and royalties. So can we save them cuz I like there flexability for my range of music without sitting all day and input the music I like Pandora.com does it for me.

I can say that radio is my life. I like it.

IS there a cost to this service?

Pandora is free!

(you can pay $36 a year and see no advertisements, but that is completely optional.)

Enjoy.

- Lucia, from Pandora

The RIAA lobbyists are a powerful group. The problem really seems to be rooted in a phenomenon that occurs whenever any industry is threatened.

In history we have seen time and again that organizations that are enormous, that become obsolete, turn into litigious beasts. It is for this reason they became obsolete to begin with. They did not have the leadership or vision to adapt to or acquire disruptive technologies and business models. Instead of embracing the technological evolution and the Internet, these dinosaurs fear it and avoid it because their management does not understand how to compete with it.

This age is about open communication, open source collaboration, etc. What really boggles my mind is why the RIAA is attacking organizations like Pandora. It is clear to me and most everyone who uses the service that it only helps the major record labels sell more songs and cds. I have purchased 4 cds in the past year of artists I would otherwise not have known. Before that I had not purchased a cd for over 5 years. I burned all my music using Pirate Bay and other methods to avoid lacing the pockets of the record labels. Now finally the artists have an opportunity, through Internet radio, to be heard and actually earn some money through the innovations of iTunes and Amazon, where Pandora is complementary, but NO! People are stubborn and animalistic and will stop at nothing to save face.

It is over for the record labels, I just wish they would not decide to spend their reserves fighting the future of free information and maybe donate some of that money they are losing to good charities, or hell, buy stock in Google or Apple; companies that will likely partner with Pandora to kick ass in the future. Stay positive and understand that the Internet is too open and advanced for the people in Washington to effectively control, oh, I forgot about the Patriot Act. Well, there is still hope, and I don't necessarily mean Obama. Peace.

I can honestly say that i've purchased nearly 20 CDs from artists I only learned about through Pandora. Please keep Pandora alive!! I personally believe it benefits the RIAA more than they may think already.

can honestly say that i've purchased nearly 20 CDs from artists I only learned about through Pandora. Please keep Pandora alive!! I personally believe it benefits

Internet broadcasting should not be distinguished from normal broadcasting. Both should have the same imposed licensing requirements. There is no reason for internet radio to be an exception to the rule.

I can honestly say that i've purchased nearly 20 CDs from artists I only learned about through Pandora. Please keep Pandora alive!!

I can say that radio is my life. I like it

Move to Europe. Make friends with Last.fm while you're over there.

I will write a letter this weekend. What you guys are doing is so incredible. It is going to lead to more sales for these artists because you are showing artists that I don't know or forgot about. That leads to more itunes/cd sales. Please let us know what else we can do to keep you going.

I was stunned to hear about this the other day..

I have been looking for this information for days. Thanks a lot.

Very interesting article, thaks for it, good work!
It's good to now what Riia do, but Riaa don't now how to stop all of this.
Thans :)

Amazing... I was stunned to hear about this the other day. It reminds me of the 'pauper jails' where they would arrest people who couldn't pay taxes thinking that would increase revenue.

Thanks you a lot

I must tell you that I am very happy. I can be at work working of course and relaying to the music at the same time.

The point of writing a congressman is to get protections put into law, not just repeal the current fee system. Yes, that will help in the short term, but there needs to be some protection for business innovation. As was mentioned, it doesnt matter if the song played even comes from a RIAA member entity. I would be happy if i searched for Big Label bands, but only heard independants.

you can listen to Pandora in Ireland?

The RIAA lobbyists are a powerful group. The problem really seems to be rooted in a phenomenon that occurs whenever any industry is threatened.

I can say that radio is my life. I like it

Just wonder what exactly is an IA?

omg.. good work, brother

as the immediate impact of this decision could silence many free Internet radio stations forever

I was stunned to hear about this the other day..

I have been looking for this information for days. Thanks a lot.

I'm guessing the only way to do this in Javascript would be to use the onresize event, and then using the resizeTo method to attempt to keep the window at the size you want?

thank you

great entry

thank you.

It's the shameless and blatant disregard for Law and the arrogant, unethical attitudes, that are the foundation of statements such as "...I burned all my music using Pirate Bay and other methods to avoid lacing the pockets of the record labels", that are an obvious cause for animosity toward Pandora.

I have recommended and assisted many in joining the Pandora listener population and I enjoy Pandora on an almost daily basis. I truly appreciate the service and, even more so, Pandora's stated intent. Unfortunately, the previously outlined attitude and the results of the resulting behavior of a pitifully large number of co-conspirators has left music license holders and artists with no desire to ally themselves with end users, fans, and listeners.

I hope Pandora can overcome the obstacles and prosper but don't expect ASCAP/BMI/etc to have any compassion or give a hint of a care when individuals with @pandora.com as a domain and Pandora listed as their employer profess to be part of the problem.

great blog, thanks

Is it possible to get EFF involved? With their help, the message may get louder and stronger.

But I guess, all they see is green - such that they just overlook it all. perde

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

But I guess, all they see is green - such that they just overlook it all

I have recommended and assisted many in joining the Pandora listener population and I enjoy Pandora on an almost daily basis. I truly appreciate the service and, even more so, Pandora's stated intent. Unfortunately, the previously outlined attitude and the results of the resulting behavior of a pitifully large number of co-conspirators has left music license holders and artists with no desire to ally themselves with end users, fans, and listeners.
Thank you

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

Move to Europe. The RIAA can't bankrupt you there. Make friends with Last.fm while you're over there

It sounds nice but moving offshore wouldn't make it legal to play music to people in the USA without playing US mandated royalties.

It's the shameless and blatant disregard for Law and the arrogant, unethical attitudes, that are the foundation of statements such as "...I burned all my music using Pirate Bay and other methods to avoid lacing the pockets of the record labels", that are an obvious cause for animosity toward Pandora.

The point of writing a congressman is to get protections put into law, not just repeal the current fee system. Yes, that will help in the short term, but there needs to be some protection for business innovation. As was mentioned, it doesnt matter if the song played even comes from a RIAA member entity. I would be happy if i searched for Big Label bands, but only heard independants.

I can say that radio is my life. I like

In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it...) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkable

I made a gift station for a friend in Canada to find out that he can't access Pandora. :(

Radios must live forever. somebody must do something.

"...I burned all my music using Pirate Bay and other methods to avoid lacing the pockets of the record labels", that are

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

It's ridiculous that on one hand Congress would consider banning the merger of Sirius and XM Radio due to concerns about limiting listener choice, and at the same time let these royalty rates pass. Thanks for that nice web design.

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

This age is about open communication, open source collaboration, etc. What really boggles my mind is why the RIAA is attacking organizations like Pandora. It is clear to me and most everyone who uses the service that it only helps the major record labels sell more songs and cds. I have purchased 4 cds in the past year of artists I would otherwise not have known. Before that I had not purchased a cd for over 5 years. I burned all my music using Pirate Bay and other methods to avoid lacing the pockets of the record labels. Now finally the artists have an opportunity, through Internet radio, to be heard and actually earn some money through the innovations of iTunes and Amazon, where Pandora is complementary, but NO! People are stubborn and animalistic and will stop at nothing to save face.

Before I ask my question, a quick disclaimer: I think RIAA is badly misguided, DRM is sheer idiocy, and hit-driven business models in music are circling the drain. Hope this reduces the flaming.

Here's my question: isn't any company free to charge any prices for its products, unless it's a monopoly. Do the Big Four have a monopoly on music? If not, is charging Web stations and not charging terresrtial stations illegal? BTW, is it really true that terrestial stations pay nothing? That's hard to believe.

Pandora's stated intent. Unfortunately, the previously outlined attitude and the results of the resulting behavior of a pitifully large number of co-conspirators has left music license holders and artists with no desire to ally themselves with end users, fans, and listeners.

It sounds nice but moving offshore wouldn't make it legal to play music to people in the USA without playing US mandated royalties.

Radios must live forever.

In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it...) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkabl

Corporations don't do things just to be mean - they're trying to make money. What is the gain to destroying Internet radio, especially when loss of current royalty revenue is involved thanks

I must tell you that I am very happy. I can be at work working of course and relaying to the music at the same time. It is very relaxing and I am getting more work done because I am enjoying what I am listening too. The different musicians and what ever songs or style of song I want. No commercials and it's FREE. Can't ask for more. Thanks for helping me throughout the day. :)

The RIAA continues to protect corporate America, with no regard whatsoever to Art America.
Let's face it, the big record companies care very little (actually, nothing) for art. Music is a business not an art form. The RIAA is designed to protect the (so-called) business, not the art, nor the artists, nor the listeners. They like to think in strictly product-consumer terms, and they're going to dictate how the consumer must consume. If the consumer wants to listen to internet radio � too bad, that's not how the RIAA and the record companies want it. They want to tell us what to eat, and how to eat it. That's the bottom line. Just like the mp3 revolution, though, you really can't stop a good thing and someone somewhere will figure out a way of getting around it.

Oyunlar, you are absolutely right!

In this case, being essentially considered a criminal (and yes, they do consider legitimate webcasters criminals-- it's only a matter of time before they come out and say it...) even though you have tried to play by the rules is wrong, but otherwise unremarkabl

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

I suspect that the RIAA intends to use this as a bargaining chip for "more reasonable" rates. "Reasonable" in this case being crippling, but not fatal.

Oyunlar, you are absolutely right!

Here's my question: isn't any company free to charge any prices for its products, unless it's a monopoly. Do the Big Four have a monopoly on music? If not, is charging Web stations and not charging terresrtial stations illegal? BTW, is it really true that terrestial stations pay nothing? That's hard to believe.

This reminds me of the 200 lawsuit over the royalties set by the famous webcaster-killer RIAA. The lawsuit was designed to put smaller, independent webcasters out of business. RIAA view the world and the Internet as a broadcast medium.

The point of writing a congressman is to get protections put into law, not just repeal the current fee system. Yes, that will help in the short term, but there needs to be some protection for business innovation. As was mentioned, it doesnt matter if the song played even comes from a RIAA member entity. I would be happy if i searched for Big Label bands, but only heard independants.

That's the bottom line. Just like the mp3 revolution, though, you really can't stop a good thing and someone somewhere will figure out a way of getting around it.

I'm guessing the only way to do this in Javascript would be to use the onresize event, and then using the resizeTo method to attempt to keep the window at the size you want?

Before I ask my question, a quick disclaimer: I think RIAA is badly misguided, DRM is sheer idiocy, and hit-driven business models in music are circling the drain. Hope this reduces the flaming.

Here's my question: isn't any company free to charge any prices for its products, unless it's a monopoly. Do the Big Four have a monopoly on music? If not, is charging Web stations and not charging terresrtial stations illegal? BTW, is it really true that terrestial stations pay nothing? That's hard to believe.

If there's no monopoly and these new rates are not otherwise illegal, how can anyone argue that they are too high? Isn't it a bit like saying "I've wanted a Ferrari all my life but can't afford it. These evil Ferrari dealers have made millions of small-time dreamers like me miserable."

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

I'm guessing the only way to do this in Javascript would be to use the onresize event, and then using the resizeTo method to attempt to keep the window at the size you want?

One more comment. Pandora is NOT legal for listeners outside the US. We can play music from anywhere, but can't serve listeners that are not located in the US. It's entirely a licensing issue. It's the reason we require a US zip code at registration.

No, we have not budgeted for this, nor have we known anything about this issue.
If we would have known, especially the retro-active stuff, we would have never went into business in the first place.

We are paying for our radio out of our own pockets every month, because we enjoy doing what we are doing.

There is no way we can pay the fees they are asking for.

What the RIAA is doing is OUTRAGOUS!

THE GOVERNMENT AND RIAA ARE WRONG IN TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ON ARTISTS AND THEIR MUSIC. EVERYONE NEEDS MUSIC AND THERE ARE LEGITIMATE OPTIONS TO BETTER HANDLE THE PROBLEMS AT HAND IN
REGARDS TO ONLINE SHARING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WHILE ALSO
PROVIDING COMPENSATION FOR THE HARD WORKING BANDS AND ARTISTS..

I sent a letter to both of my senators, my representative, and my governor. I recommend that everyone who uses any type of on-line radio service do the same. If enough voices are heard things can be changed.

thanks

nice article, thanks for your share..

ythank you

It could have something top do with control. Control over hits and hypes. And with Pandora people could more and more discover, hopping from new song to new song, music completely unknown to them, guided by there own ears. It's great, but too personal. You don't sell records in large amounts this way when the people differ to much or when while listening experience developed, an active and curious ear.

Excellent design

http://www.evdenevenakliyatx.com/

It could have something top do with control. Control over hits and hypes. And with Pandora people could more and more discover, hopping from new song to new song, music completely unknown to them, guided by there own ears. It's great, but too personal. You don't sell records in large amounts this way when the people differ to much or when while listening experience developed, an active and curious ear.

Thanks a Lot bebeğim.

Thanks for writing, I really enjoyed that post, wish you would post more often.

Thanks for articles

Thanks so much for this. It always annoyed me, but I always just dealt with it

thank you very good