Why is the Copyright Royalty Board, apparently a government agency, involved at all in setting prices? Shouldn't that be up to the buyer and the seller?

By the way, and I apologize for being so picky, but I can't stand seeing people publish incorrect figures: the "300 to 1200 percent increase" seems wrong to me. Presumably the 300% comes from the fact that the standard per-song royalty will be "almost tripled", from .07 to .19 cents per song. But tripling would be an increase of 200%. The actual increase in this case would be about 171%.

It doesn't affect the issue, of course, but it could be used to argue that SaveNetRadio.org is exaggerating the numbers.

Hi, I signed! I hope this is enough. I'll pass it along to all my friends. It would suck to lose Pandora.

A thought, adding a little blurb and a link to the petition in your email signature is one easy and unobtrusive way to help get the word out.

I signed it as well as e-mailed it to some friends and posted it on my FaceBook account.

Can Canadians do anything to help?

Hello, I would have liked to sign the petition, but it seems reserved to US citizens.

I've been listening to pandora for a while to satiate my never ending thirst for new music to get into.. and I'm really sad to hear about this new change...

is there anyway those from outside the USA can help?

I've just signed the form not because of my future listening..I use Pandora twice a month, maybe less. I think this is unfair to charge the bill by 4. And I think government must NOT stand between buyer and seller. It's their own business. Gov gets its tax, what is enough for them!

It may already be too late.

The problem for me is that the SaveNetRadio.org petition is not only wrong (as per aldel's comments above), it's also rather lame. It asks me to send a message stating that the new royalty rates will be a "blow to listeners" and will "kill the great diversity of music that I hear over the Internet", neither statement being of any interest to the profiteers who run the music industry. It's just a bunch of freeloaders whining.

What the petition NEEDS to say is that by killing Internet radio, you are crimping off a key revenue stream. Millions of people like myself hear tracks they like online, and then scuttle away to PAY FOR THEM either as a download from iTunes or in the form of an album from Amazon. The fact that listeners PAY FOR MUSIC is absolutely key here!

As it stands the petition will only be effective if many millions of people sign it. Which they won't.

I like very much pandora and i hope not lose pandora... greetings of Portugal!

Tim,

This is indeed a shocking news. I've already signed the petition and made a blog post about it.

Would Pandora be able to share some buttons like one above (Savenetradio.org) that we bloggers can use on our blogs to protest against such idiotic policies? That way bloggers can spread awareness of this issue on the web.

Regards - and i hope sanity prevails!

Suyog

I tried:

Dear Daniel:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Copyright Royalty Board?s rate increase decision and its effect on small webcasters. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.

The royalty rate for webcasters has proven to be a controversial subject, with small webcasters hoping to become viable, competitive alternatives to large commercial radio stations. As you point out, many of these small webcasters offer a variety of music unavailable to a wide audience through other sources.

Regulations set by the enactment of the Small Webcasters Settlement Act of 2002, which favored small webcasters, recently expired and the regulations had to be revisited. As you know, in March, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board issued its decision, which establishes new rates for commercial and noncommercial webcasters. The Board considered the comments of small commercial webcasters, who sought continuation of a fee based solely according to revenue. Ultimately, the Board rejected this benefit for small webcasters, opting instead for a flat-rate fee and a per song per listener basis. When making this decision, the Board cited the difficulty of distinguishing small and large commercial webcasters, as well as their own lack of statutory authority to carve out royalty rate niches for the emergent business models promoted by small commercial webcasters.

The Board?s decision can be revised through legislative action, and it is likely that the Senate will examine this issue. I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind when it does.

Again, thank you for raising this issue with me. Please stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

just saw yesterdays ruling. this is insane.
have signed the petition and will spread the word where I can
looks like common sense is dying and greed is winning

I signed, I wrote a letter to my pal Barbara Boxer (worked with her and her busband on her first campaign), wrote to Diane too, my local Rep, sent e-mails to all my friends and did anything else I could think of. Seems the LCD (lowest common denominator) of this country is terrified by anything beyond American Idol...which I "get" to "watch" and "listen to" for free...what a sad thought...we can be force-fed junk but can't have a unique new form of personally-tailored entertainment to balance out the constant barrage of war, terrorism, murder, chaos and bad TV...we need to PAY PAY PAY for the good stuff, the uplifting stuff, the stuff that satisfies us and keeps us sane. Pandora keeps me sane. I'll be a little less sane if the government, to whom I pay a wad of taxes to go fight unwinnable wars, shuts it down...keep up the good fight, Tim. We're behind ya all the way.

It doesn't seem like this is really a reasonable idea at all and certainly not aimed at supporting musicians. It's right in line with the RIAA's typical and ridiculous behaviors. Crushing internet radio means LESS listeners, which means less royalties, not more.

I've submitted my response to the petition. I hope that we can all make a big enough outcry for this to be reconsidered.

Hi! Being a newbie to Pandora (2 weeks), I think it's the greatest idea on the web, ever. Ive been to savenetradio and signed their petition, called my senator etc. before I joined Pandora. I'm wondering if any of the EMI Apple agreements about having the two tier music files and lifting sharing restrictions might have a positive affect on all the recent bad legislation. I welcome all your comments as I sense that Pandora's community are some sophisticated music lovers. Thanks for hearing me.

hi,

i'm a paid-up member of pandora, and i love what you provide - i'd be devastated if these new rulings prevented you from operating.

why can't you move the music parts (ie. the storage and servers) offshore?

wouldn't you then be exempt from the rules of CRB?

I loose Pandora today.

I am living in Tokyo and you may have no idea of what kind of music we are forced to hear on the air.

Please, let me know what I can do to have you back !

A good friend of mine from back in the days when we were volunteers at WREK at Georgia Tech asked me read this blog
and sign a petition protesting statutory licensing rates for digital transmittance of copyrighted music.

I tried to read up on this a bit at http://www.savenetradio.org/about/index.html. The issue seems to be disagreement between an organization representing artists on one side and various broadcasters on the other who are disputing royalty rates set in legislation passed in 2005.

Savenetradio.org does not make a compelling case. I want them too. Perhaps their resources to do so are lacking.
The sample letter says "I respectfully request that Congress look into this matter and take action to prevent it." If I send this, what specifically am I asking a Congress person to do? Can you imagine any Congress person taking the time and effort to say, "Oh, our bad. I'll alter that rate section of the Copyright legislation that a majority (probably only some of which knew to be aware of the implications) signed off on 2 years ago."

The horses's mouth of this issue is http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/rates-terms2005-1.pdf.

I feel pessimistic of any change being made in favor of small netcasters. Was 2004 the year to catch this fox in the hen house?

I may be misunderstanding some nuances about this. Perhaps I misinterpet the CRB proceedings by not reading carefully. Please educate me.

While I doubt Rep. Culberson and Sens. Hutchison and Cornyn are going to agree with me on this issue, I signed. I don't believe it's fair that those who can least afford it should have to pay the highest rates, especially when you are trying to work within the law to bring this music to an appreciative audience.

Speaking as a writer, someone who relies on copyright protection, I appreciate this effort on your part. Like the musical artists, I want as wide an audience as possible while making sure my work is protected. Internet radio seems like a wonderful balance between the two, and it should be aided in it's goals during these early years, not squashed.

Thanks for this wonderful service. I hope you can pull a victory out of this. I fear a loss will only encourage more piracy, and thereby weaken the protections of copyright.

Thanks for all the great comments, everyone. A few thoughts:

We're working on the petition layout and functioning. This all had to be put together very quickly.

In terms of action, we're working on introducing a bill soon in congress. For now the outreach is mainly about raising visibility and putting the reps on notice that their constituents care so that when the bill is in the docket, they'll support and perhaps add their names as sponsors. We'll reach out again at that time.

EMI moves don't really impact us.

In terms of the wording, the salient issues are those that impact listeners, not the labels. Totally agree with you that it will further reduce revenue, but that's not the direct concern of listeners. Believe me when we argue this to labels, and interested reps we fully articulate the myriad financial benefits of supporting internet radio.

Thanks. Tim (Founder)

Also, for the folks interested in putting up links. There are some here:

http://www.savenetradio.org/act_now/link_kit.html

Thanks for helping spread the word.

Tim (Founder)

I learnt of Pandora because of the petition. I'd love to sign, but I'm not from the US. And I fail to see why US law should dictate what I can listen. As someone above said, can't you move the servers elsewhere? I just discovered Pandora, and I'd hate to lose it.

Once again, as some people asked before me, what can we do if we're not american ? I guess this would have no effect as a petition, but foreigners could sign nothing too, to show they also unlike this law.

More knowledge is needed before any effective action should happen on this issue. The royalty rates are NOT for songwriters and publishers, but performers. US radio has been exempt from these fees for decades, since the dawn of radio. Non-US radio has always paid these fees. When the Beatles played Chuck Berry tunes and radio stations played those recordings, Chuck got paid (maybe) as the writer. The Beatles also got paid from Non-US radio but NOT from US radio.

Performers should be paid for their work if it's good enough for people to want to listen to. US radio has had a free ride on the backs of musicians for too long.

There should be a sliding scale based on revenues for ALL radio and music venues, whether terrestial, satellite, or internet. I've been told that terrestial radio has too powerful a lobby, that they'll never be forced to pay performers even though that is their core product, what they use to generate ad revenue.

If big radio paid fairly, there'd be a much bigger pot for performers and fees could be lower across the board. Musicians deserve to be paid for their work.

Hi all!
I signed the petition; i love this radio
:O)

A friend of mine has created a Facebook group regarding all of this. Feel free to join and try to help gather support: http://unl.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2299918474

Can a musician waive royalties from Internet radio? If so, I'll be happy to waive my royalties if you play my CD. I think the advertising value far outweighs the pennies that I would receive as royalties - and considering that the increased royalties would put Internet radio out of business, I'd much rather be heard for free than not be heard at all.

I am in the process of getting my CD on Amazon; when it is up, I will be glad to send Pandora some sort of official-looking letter saying that I waive all royalties from that CD.

Is there a particular bill or upcoming vote that I could ask my senators and rep to act on? I like to be able to cite a specific item and action I want them to support or oppose when I call their offices. I already had the petition faxed, but like others have pointed out, it's a bit vague and may not make the best arguments.

Hi, I'm out of the US. I live in Colombia, and I'll like to join the petition, but the format doesn't include an option for the "out of the US". How, then, can I help? Don't want Pandora to die!

Since some of us may be writing to extremely right-wing republican representatives of some of the U.S. states, I'd like to point out that a re-write of the basic message may be necessary, since a lot of Right-wing republicans may not find the matter of "keeping new music alive" as "important issue to pay attention to."

I added the following paragraph in the letter to my Representative:
-----------------------------------
The legislation in question is exceptionally dangerous in the field of American academic and new music. At present, a staggering amount of internet broadcasters are in good standing with various societies of American composers, and provide a sound solution to broadcasting new music by American composers. As a proud representative of music schools of Texas A&M University and University of North Texas, I can not stress the importance of public broadcasting of music of contemporary Texan composers. Your radio dial may be an unofficial proof of my claim: you will be hard pressed to find American works for piano, choir, orchestra, chamber ensembles, and other staggering works. Internet broadcasting establishes a private sector of funds necessary for exposure of American and Texan composers. Since for the past 50 years many academic establishments relied greatly on State support, the new methods of broadcasting via the Internet contribute to diminishing need on financial support from the State.
------------------------------------
I suggest that in your address of your representative you will attempt to write something that highlights the immediate need for the State to become interested. Strength of numbers alone would do, but this issue has not been promoted widely, and we need every single bit of support that we can get. The least you can do, is call your community radio station, and submit this information as a PSA. To the uninitiated: don't call some classic rock ClearChannel one. Call the one you think nobody ever listens to on the right-hand side of the FM dial.

This is an outrage, and it must be stopped immediately.

I love this radio. I hope the best.
Unfortunatelly I am not from the US. Please everybody there sign there petition!

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THESE RADIO STATIONS AWAY, MANY OF MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE GOSPEL WORLD LISTEN TO THE MANY STATIONS THAT ARE ON THE INTERNET. LIVES ARE BEING SAVED BY THESE STATIONS, PEOPLE ARE COMING TOGETHER IN COMMUNITY TO STOP THE DRUGS AND TEACHING THE YOUNG PEOPLE TO STAY IN SCHOOL.THIS IS A WAY FOR THE PEOPLE TO HELP ONE ANOTHER.PLEASE KEPT HOPE ALIVE ON THE INTERNET. LOVE,DWAYNE BROWN.

Again, I keep saying this to everybody, and now to the owners here at Pandora. Why can't you simply move the music core of the business OFFSHORE? Problem solved.

"The Internet looks at censorship as damage and routes around it" - John Gilmore.

"The Internet looks at Copyright Laws as economic censorship and routes around it" - Mark Pesce.

Pandora can't move its servers offshore, as they would still be hit with the same restrictions. It wouldn't help to be off of U.S. soil.

I agree that the SaveNetRadio.org site needs improvement and clarification, though. I just wrote to my Congresspeople, but I'm not clear on what I just asked them to do. Are we asking Congress to draft legislation re-considering the role of the CRB?

Thank you for setting things up so that it was easy to email our state representatives to SAVE INTERNET RADIO! I LOVE Pandora and have been using it to listen to jazz music...it helps me find new artists and new music and I enjoy listening while I'm "vegging out" at the computer playing solitaire!

HI :)

I just want to wish pandora all the best - and hope that its and many other internet radios are still available in the future :)

I enjoy listenining to many different forms of radio shows, including ones with cool music.

I just hope that maybe someday the big someone will get a wake-up call and realize that there, in fact, preventing and hindering the technological future. As I see internet radio as the future for radio...

All the best from a Dane :)

Here is the response that I received from my Senator, Dianne Feinstein.

---------------------------

Dear Mr. Eckhert:

Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the Copyright Royalty Board's recent decision on the statutory rate for music webcasting. I understand your concerns and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Under the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Congress - at the behest of webcasters - created the Copyright Royalty Board which consists of three judges. By law, the judges are a venue of last resort and are required to periodically set rates for various statutory copyright licenses in the event that webcasters and copyright owners are unable to reach voluntary agreements. In the absence of an agreement, the judges set a rate designed to approximate the fair-market value that webcasters should pay to artists and performers for streaming their music for the years 2006-2010. The new rate that was established is less than a 5 percent increase of the rate in effect from 1998-2005.

Although a few webcasters have recently claimed that the process was unfair, it was not arbitrary and allowed representatives from all sides to make their cases. The judges began the proceedings in 2005, and heard testimony from dozens of witnesses and conducted a comprehensive review of tens of thousands of pages of evidence submitted by all interested parties over an 18-month period.

While some webcasters may choose to pay this rate, independent negotiations between the parties are still possible and this new statutory rate would serve as the ceiling. Additionally, if it appears that the new rate will reduce the overall amount of webcasting - as well as the overall income from this stream of revenue - the copyright owners may still have an incentive to offer webcasters a rate less than the statutory rate.

I am a strong believer in intellectual property rights and believe that artists and performers have earned the right to be fairly compensated for the broadcast of their works by webcasters who benefit - financially and otherwise - from their talents. Without fair compensation, these artists would not create their works.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should legislation addressing this new rate or the rate-setting process come before the Senate, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. In the meantime, if you should have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.

Based on this response from Senator Feinstein I feel as though somebody is misleading us on this issue, I just don't know who. Either the impact of the decision is to raise webcaster rates by 5% as stated below or it's to raise them several 100% as the webcasters claim.

----- Original Message ----
From: "senator@feinstein.senate.gov"
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:39:00 AM
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message

Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the Copyright Royalty Board's recent decision on the statutory rate for music webcasting. I understand your concerns and appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Under the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Congress - at the behest of webcasters - created the Copyright Royalty Board which consists of three judges. By law, the judges are a venue of last resort and are required to periodically set rates for various statutory copyright licenses in the event that webcasters and copyright owners are unable to reach voluntary agreements. In the absence of an agreement, the judges set a rate designed to approximate the fair-market value that webcasters should pay to artists and performers for streaming their music for the years 2006-2010. The new rate that was established is less than a 5 percent increase of the rate in effect from 1998-2005.

Although a few webcasters have recently claimed that the process was unfair, it was not arbitrary and allowed representatives from all sides to make their cases. The judges began the proceedings in 2005, and heard testimony from dozens of witnesses and conducted a comprehensive review of tens of thousands of pages of evidence submitted by all interested parties over an 18-month period.

While some webcasters may choose to pay this rate, independent negotiations between the parties are still possible and this new statutory rate would serve as the ceiling. Additionally, if it appears that the new rate will reduce the overall amount of webcasting - as well as the overall income from this stream of revenue - the copyright owners may still have an incentive to offer webcasters a rate less than the statutory rate.

I am a strong believer in intellectual property rights and believe that artists and performers have earned the right to be fairly compensated for the broadcast of their works by webcasters who benefit - financially and otherwise - from their talents. Without fair compensation, these artists would not create their works.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should legislation addressing this new rate or the rate-setting process come before the Senate, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. In the meantime, if you should have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

I signed the petition and sent email messages to my Senators and Representative. My wonderful Congressman, Jim McDermott (WA-07), has already gotten back to me, as follows:

************************************
Dear [N in Seattle]:

Thank you for writing me about the recent Copyright Royalty Board's decision to raise music royalty rates. I believe these increases will be a significant burden on Internet based music sources and that the retroactive nature of this decision could be seen as excessive. Consumers and artists benefit from Internet radio which offers diverse musical material by artists who do not receive commercial radio airplay.

Unfortunately, these new royalty rates are so high that most small Internet radio stations and noncommercial webcasters do not have the resources to pay them and thus will be forced out of business. At the same time, artists and copyright holders will receive neither exposure nor royalties from these failing stations. In the past, I have supported legislation that required the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel to establish fair rates and terms, and I will continue to support solutions that help Internet radio stations stay on the air.

I appreciate hearing from you on this issue, and hope you will continue to share your views with me.

Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
************************************

Nothing returned yet by Senators Murray and Cantwell. I'm particularly interested in what Maria Cantwell (a former Real Networks executive) might say.

I discovered Pandora a couple of months ago. Not only has Pandora opened an incredible depth of music enjoyment, it has directly led me to buy more CD's in the last month than I had in the last 10 years! Pandora is a huge leap forward and will generate more revenue for artists - I have no doubt - my newfound spending is a proof point.

Concerned about the monopolistic short-sighted CRB decision, I wrote my Congressman, David Price (Raleigh/Reserach Triangle Park, NC). Not only is webcasting in danger but these mega-media lobbyists are hurting the future of music discovery, and are killing the innovation it brings - especially Pandora. Congressman Price replied with an appreciation of the issues and is taking action:
****************************
Dear <>

Thank you for contacting me regarding the imposition of new royalty rates on Internet broadcasters by the Library of Congress's Copyright Royalty Board (CRB).

I recognize the growing importance of webcasting as a broadcast medium for the digital age, and I share your concern about the CRB's proposed rate structure, which could severely limit webcasters' ability to operate and put many out of business. Federal copyright laws have always reflected an attempt to balance the rights of users against the rights of performers and copyright owners, and generally speaking, Congress and the CRB have recognized that Internet media must be treated differently than conventional audio and video. In this case, however, the new CRB rate structure - which would be based on the overall number of listeners and songs played rather than a share of webcasters' advertising revenue - appears to have tilted the balance too far in the direction of copyright owners.

As you may know, on April 16 the CRB denied the motions for rehearing filed by National Public Radio and other online broadcasters, effectively affirming its original proposal. Without further action, the new rate structure will take effect on May 15, 2007, and will be retroactive to January 1, 2006. In response to CRB's decision, I have written the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, to express my serious concerns about the new rate structure and to urge CRB to postpone its implementation pending further review of the matter. A copy of my letter is attached.

It also may interest you to know that several members of Congress are currently drafting legislation that would revoke the new royalty rates and require CRB to develop a more reasonable rate structure that would be less detrimental to webcasters. I am in touch with these members and plan to cosponsor their proposal should a legislative fix prove necessary.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please continue to keep in touch on issues of concern.

Sincerely,

DAVID PRICE

Member of Congress

Thanks for the continued flow of comments, suggestions and critiques. We're reading everything you say.

Pandora is not legal outside the US. It's something that drives us crazy as we'd love nothing better than to launch there. We're working hard on the licensing. This has certainly put a serious damper on those efforts.

Don't be discouraged by the opaque or negative replies from the senators/reps. In the end, the power of a groundswell of constituent support will outweigh other ties. This is all about raising awareness, then making sure they do the right thing when our bill is introduced.

We're getting ready to go to DC!

Tim (Founder)

I signed, got all my friends and family to sign....... thanks for your hard work Tim....... keep up posted on the developments

I recived this from Boxer's office:
*********************************
Dear Friend:

Thank you for your e-mail message and for your interest in public policy.

In order to better serve the 36 million residents of California, I am now using an e-mail system located on my Senate website. This system enables me to provide more and better responses to you and other constituents while saving taxpayer dollars. (Unfortunately, limited resources do not allow me to respond to e-mails generated by third-party organizations.)

If you would like a reply to your message, I encourage you to visit my website e-mail system at http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm
Simply fill in the fields, type in your message, and click �Submit� at the bottom of the page.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

************************

I then pasted the letter into there email system, urge everyone to do the same.

Shane

This has to be one of the best non-answers yet from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison:
________________________________________________
Thank you for contacting me regarding copyright protection. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Copyright protection has been central to America's prosperity and job creation. Movies, books, computer software, television, photography and music are among our unique American products and some of our most successful exports. United States industries depending on copyright protection employ nearly 4 million workers and produce over $65 billion of our exports ( more than agriculture and automobile manufacturing.

Protecting content in a high-technology age is a new and daunting problem, and copyright protection is an important challenge as the broadband revolution offers even more far-reaching possibilities and opportunities. With new speed and interactivity, the entire store of movies, music, books, television and raw knowledge can be made widely available. I believe copyright protection is a foundation of innovation, and copyright law should work to ultimately protect the best interests of consumers. Intellectual property is the creative core of the information age, and I agree this is a pivotal issue for Congress to address.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
________________________________________________

All I have to say is to keep up the fight, there are a lot of people behind you!! Many of my friends have signed the petition.

The 5% increase is just wrong. Do the math.

2005: 0.0007 per track per listener
2006: 0.0008 per track per listener
2007 0.0011
2008 0.0014
2009 0.0018
2010 0.0019

Soo from 2005-2006, the increase is 14%
From 2006-2007: the increase is 38%
From 2007-2008: the increase is 27%
From 2008 -2009: the increase is 29%
And from 2009-2010: the increase is 6%

By 2010, the rates will have increased 271% from the rates in 2005.

I also received the same form letter from Senator Feinstein and now I'm also confused as to what the old rates were vs. what the new rates are. Can someone point to the specifics of the rate changes? It's hard to argue without all the facts.

;ted

Hey, Ted,

Check out Rusty's numbers above, and his great post from this morning at the Soma.fm site:

http://somafm.com/blogs/rusty/2007/04/senator-dianne-feinstein-has-wrong.html

Sen. Feinstein: "less than a 5 percent increase of the rate in effect from 1998-2005."

The discrepancy must come from the fact that the rates were substantially lowered in 2005. The 5% figure comes from comparing the rates from before May 31, 2005 with (one of) the future rates (not sure which one); whereas the higher figures we've seen everywhere else are compared with the rate in effect after that.

So, what was web radio like under the old, higher rates? What were those rates?

Similar to "N_in_Seattle" above, I also got a speedy response from David Price. Here is the letter to the Librarian of Congress that was mentioned in his response:

http://tinyurl.com/2k5qup

Nothing new, but good to see he is taking action...

The biggest problem with Pandora is that it is an internet radio station. That's the reason it's only available to U.S. listeners, and that's the reason it's under constant threat of copyright issues. So my question is, why doesn't simply do what it does best? Pandora is AMAZING at creating playlists on the fly. It can analyze my taste in music and help me discover new music. Why doesnt Pandora use this technology to improve offline listening? I would love to plug in my ipod and have itunes automatically update a pandora database customized to the music on my computer. This would give me the ability to listen to customized playlists based on my current mood. It would also allow itunes to make recomendations, based on your software, on what music I might want buy. Imagine a shuffle that intelligent! I think it could be easily achieved and allow Pandora's technology do what it was meant to do, rather than fight stupid battles with the RIAA. It might even give you the money to win those battles! Just a thought. If you're curious check on my post on this subject here: http://lukejduncan.blogspot.com/2007/04/dj-in-your-pocket.html

- Luke

Here is a response from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of N.Y.
_________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the proposed new royalty rates for online radio. I always enjoy hearing from New Yorkers about challenging public policy issues that are important to them, and I particularly appreciate your concerns regarding the future of I nternet radio. As you may know, I am a strong supporter of maintaining an open Internet that fosters innovation. No other communications medium in recent history has had such a profound impact on the expression of speech, education, the dissemination of information and the exchange of ideas.

Online radio is a great example of how the Internet has helped to cultivate innovation and offered consumers access to new an d personalized information. However, the great technological and commercial progress that has come with the ongoing development of the Internet has also brought with it numerous new public policy dilemmas, such as how to balance copyright protection for music and other property with the innovation that the Internet continues to cultivate.

As you know, in March 2007 the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) proposed a new online radio royalty structure, which would amend the system that has been in place since 2002 and establish a new scale for royalties charged to I nternet radio companies on a per-song, per-listener basis. The proposed rates will begin at 0.08 cents per song per listener, retroactive to January 1, 2006 , and will reach 0.19 cents per song per listener in 2010. The CRB has since announced that it will hear appeals of its previous ruling. Your concerns about this matter are significant and I hope that this period for appeal will enable the CRB to carefully consider points of view like yours.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns regarding these important I nternet radio issues with me. Please be assured that I will continue to follow this issue closely and that I will

keep your views in mind in the future if related measures come before the Senate. For more informa tion on my support for an open I nternet and other important issues before the United States Senate, please visit my website at http://clinton.senate.gov .

Sincerely,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Just posted something on my blog this morning to support Pandora. As I'm living outside of the US, what are your suggestions for foreign users to support your cause?

From Congressman Peter Welch (D) VT

Dear Mr. Freeman,

Thank you for contacting me about the recent royalty rate determination by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). I appreciate your feedback on this issue.

I understand your concern about the effect of this decision on internet radio broadcasters. The CRB issued its "Determination of Rates and Terms for Webcasting" on March 2, 2007. This rule establishes a retroactive rate of $0.0008 per performance of each song per listener. This rate will increase annually to $0.0019 in 2010. Interested parties have the opportunity both to request a rehearing of the CRB and to file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

I will keep your thoughts in mind and carefully consider any measures that come before Congress that help ensure that internet radio broadcasters are able to remain financially viable while paying reasonable and fair royalties.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to stay in touch, and I look forward to seeing you in Vermont soon.

Sincerely,
Peter Welch
United States Congress

Why don't you just move your radio to Canada, Switzerland, Tuvalu or any other really free country ?

I'm loosing Pandora in 2 hours, which is kinda crappy because I recently bought a Squeezebox pretty much only because I absolutely adore Pandora...
Well, there's really not much I can do from Austria, but keep bugging your representatives...
Sad though that other critical issues like the controversial wars somehow don't get influenced by public opinion.
Greetings,
Andy

I�m from Brazil and I love PANDORA RADIO!!! I�m very sad with a news of block brazilians users. I listen all day in my job and Pandora is the best radio online, because it�s organizated and faster than other streaming radios. I want Pandora in Brazil, pleeeease!!!
hugs ;)

Hi, I signed! I hope this is enough...

I'm so sad... its one of my favorate sites... :(
i hope you will bring us our music back soon...
thanks for making this wonderful radio, and... don't give up on us...

by the way, i'm from Israel.

hugs!

This has been my favourite site to listen to music it on... I've bought so many Cd's that i would have never even Had the chance to have known they existed had it not been for this site.

It SUCKS big time that Canadian people and other countries won't be able to listen any more because of stupid yanky laws.

I love Pandor and I'd love to share it with my friends in Canada and Brazil. I don't understand these stupid laws (and later on they complaint when people start downloading music illegally or buying pirate music - they are shutting down all good alternatives, what else do they want?!!!)

i love this

love music