(Warning: This is long, but I’d really like to fully articulate Pandora’s perspective on royalties, which is simply impossible to do in just a few sentences.)

Over 13 years ago when I started this company, we set out with a singular mission: to help connect artists with their audiences and help listeners find music that they love. This led to the creation of the personalized radio service known as Pandora. Today, over 70 million listeners tune in to our service every month, where they hear the music of well over 100,000 different artists. These artists span the entire musical spectrum; from the well-known to the completely obscure, representing every imaginable genre. The vast majority of our collection gets no other form of radio airplay. We are incredibly excited about the new music industry that is taking shape as this personalized form of music discovery takes hold – a future that allows tens of thousands of working musicians to finally reach the audiences they deserve.

There has been a fair amount of commentary lately on Pandora’s approach to royalties – some coming from a deliberate and orchestrated campaign funded by the RIAA, and some coming from well-intentioned artists who, because of this misinformation campaign, have been mislead about Pandora’s intentions. I bear these artists no ill will. On the contrary, they are brave to speak out and articulate their perspective openly. David Lowery, Blake Morgan, Roger Waters, David Gilmour & Nick Mason, and others are all speaking from the heart. And as a long-time working musician myself, I fully understand their emotions and concerns.

While we have generally tried to steer clear of debating this issue in the media, the volume of misinformation has reached a level where I feel it’s important to set the record straight – not only for Pandora, but also for the artists themselves as they consider what, if any role, to play in shaping the policy around royalties in the coming months and years. There is a window of opportunity here to create a healthy and sustainable music ecosystem, but that won’t happen if the discussion is dominated and controlled by entrenched incumbents.

The first falsehood being disseminated is that Pandora is seeking to reduce artist royalties by 85%. That is a lie manufactured by the RIAA and promoted by their hired guns to mislead and agitate the artist community. We have never, nor would we ever advocate such a thing. I challenge the RIAA to identify a statement from Pandora that says we seek to reduce royalties by 85%. On the contrary, all of the key principals including Cary Sherman (the head of the RIAA) and Mike Huppe (the head of SoundExchange) know that we have been advocating for solutions that would grow total payments to artists. The 85% sound bite preys upon the natural suspicions of the artist community, but it is simply untrue. And although we compete directly with AM/FM radio, which pays zero performance royalties, we have always supported fair compensation to artists.

The second confusing and contentious issue is the amount of money paid for each song spin on Pandora. There is a tremendous amount of misinformation being spread on this topic as well.  First we need to clarify what a “spin” on Pandora means. Each spin on Pandora reaches a single person, compared to a “play” on FM radio that reaches potentially millions of people. In other words, a million spins on Pandora might be equivalent to a single play on a large FM station. How much would we pay in royalties for a million spins? About $1,370. (If you’re interested in the detail, an independent blogger posted today some very accurate calculations on this exact topic.) If major market FM stations paid the same rates as Pandora, based on audience, some would be paying thousands of dollars for every song they played.  How much do they pay performers right now? Zero. As Richard Conlon, SVP at BMI recently said: “One play on commercial radio is not the same thing as one play on Pandora.” He is right.

Regardless of the math, the truth remains that any way you cut it, when it comes to Internet radio “x spins pays y dollars in performance fees” is always going to sound like a small number. The total is huge and growing (over $250 million last year alone), but the per spin number is small. Which leads me to the next, and perhaps more important point. The value of a spin on Pandora is about much more than royalties. Over 350 labels actively service Pandora with new releases. And we get thousands of unsolicited submissions from artists. Why? Because radio has, and will always be THE primary means of promotion for artists. Spins means audience, and developing an audience of patrons is THE key to long-term sustainability for artists. Furthermore, in an Internet-connected world, the ability of a service like Pandora to activate fans is extraordinary – far beyond anything broadcast radio has ever been able to offer. We have already begun developing and testing those capabilities, and the artists who have participated in these programs have been blown away by the results.

The next issue concerns the publishing side. Historically, Pandora has paid essentially the same rate as all other forms of radio, a rate established unilaterally by the performing rights organizations, ASCAP and BMI, in the late 1990s. In November of last year, following a lengthy negotiation, Pandora agreed with ASCAP to a new rate, an increase over the prior amount, and shook hands with ASCAP management. Not only was our hand-shake agreement rejected by the ASCAP board, but shortly thereafter we were subjected to a  steady stream of “withdrawals” by major publishers from ASCAP and BMI seeking to negotiate separate and higher rates with Pandora, and only Pandora. This move caused us to seek the protection of the rate, also recently negotiated, enjoyed by the online radio streams of broadcast radio companies. It’s important to note that these streams represent 96% of the Internet radio listening hours among the top 20 services outside of Pandora (talk about an un-level playing field). We did not enter this period looking for a lower rate – we agreed to a higher rate. But in a sad irony, the actions of a few small, but powerful publishers seeking to gain advantage for themselves has caused all songwriters’ royalties to go down. Any characterization of Pandora as being out to cut publishing rates flies in the face of the facts.

One last thing that I feel I need to address. The RIAA has attempted to create a firestorm about an email from me asking artists if they would show their support for Internet radio by signing a letter. We were overwhelmed by the response. Over 500 independent artists stepped forward and agreed to sign. The intent was simply to communicate directly with artists about the future of music, and allow their voices – the thousands upon thousands not represented by the RIAA – to be heard, and to play a part in an issue that so directly affects them. Many of these artists have a completely different perspective from the RIAA on what’s right for them.

We did not play these conversations out in the media, and out of respect for the artists, we kept the dialogue private. When the letters were leaked to the media, we became concerned about potential intimidation of these artists (many were forbidden to sign by their labels, or spoke to us about fear of reprisal should they sign). Because of these concerns, we went back to all of them and offered to take their names off the letter. Very few did.  In fact, the list actually grew, and continues to. Out of respect for each artist who signs, we have promised to keep their names private and out of the media fray.  But we stand by those letters, and you can read them here to decide for yourself.

As I said earlier, there is a window of opportunity for recording artists and Pandora to come together around a mutually agreeable rate that will ensure a healthy and vibrant future. We are committed to the challenge of building an ad-supported business for consumers, and to do it bearing a substantial royalty cost, but just as we must honor and value the role artists play in providing the music for the service, so the artist community must also value the years of effort, investment, and expertise that has made Pandora such a massive driver of artist exposure in the music ecosystem. Such an outcome will only be reached if the debate is based on real evidence and real impact instead of emotionally satisfying but hollow talking points that do nothing but mislead, and worse, misguide the policy prescriptions for artists.

Pandora is a company founded by artists to help artists.  It is at the core of who we are and how we make decisions about our business and that will never change. We will not be intimidated. We will continue to try our best to stay above the fray and concentrate on our mission to create great Internet radio for our listeners and our artists.  We are undaunted, and we are passionate about the future of music, and an ecosystem that allows those who create it to thrive.


  1. Rand Dorman
    June 26, 2013 at 5:05pm
    Well written! Why not set up an info station? Sort of a pre-recorded forum so we can hear artists and pandora's views in a sort of civilized talk show format? I love Pandora!!!!
    1. jimmy
      June 27, 2013 at 8:21am
      Pandora is muzak. Every artist should pull their publishing in protest.
      1. Manitcor
        June 27, 2013 at 10:12am
        It's Muzak? You mean the company that charges retail and business outlets to pipe badly made synth cover tunes into public spaces? I have heard a number of covers on Pandora fortunately nothing as bad as what Muzak sells. I hear real songs by real artists often with real albums and merch for sale all linked from the screen my device is playing on. I have yet to want to buy much less be provided with incentive to buy any Muzak while I was trapped in an elevator. Perhaps you mean another company or perhaps you like comparing apples to oranges randomly in a desperate hope to simultaneously sound relevant and make the OP sound dumb.
      2. michael
        June 27, 2013 at 10:41am
        "Every artist should pull their publishing in protest." Artists almost never own their publishing. Learn, then speak.
      3. Altered States
        June 27, 2013 at 11:39am
        So, you think that Muzak is the same as Pandora? Is the battery in your hearing aid gone dead? I "tune out" Muzak out of neurological reflex. To me, Muzak is NOT music. I'm still trying to figure out just what it is - and have not, so far. On the other hand, Pandora provides an a la carte music menu of the listener's choosing. As Jazz lover (as well as a Rock lover) I get to enjoy the music that I want to hear; as opposed to having to listen to someone else's idea of what they THINK I might want to hear. Example FM radio. As Tim Westergren states, AM and FM radio pays no royalties at all to copyrighted materials, so why do the likes of Pink Floyd, and others, have a complaint against Pandora? How much is enough for these multi-millionaire musicians? And, as for "The Pink", perhaps "Money" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
      4. Alphacarey
        June 27, 2013 at 12:31pm
        Jimmy, too bad you can't make money as a troll.
      5. Hhotelconsult
        June 27, 2013 at 2:23pm
        I work in hotels. I have zero relation to Muzak. But I will say it's obvious you are leaning on a 1970's stereotype and haven't heard them in a long, long time. It's all good. People love to have opinions about things they know nothing about. lol
      6. MLMLML
        June 27, 2013 at 4:09pm
        You don't get it, do you?
      7. skihills
        June 28, 2013 at 6:54am
        If Pandora is muszak Jimmy, then its because YOU created the muzak playlist you twit! Your ignorance sir, as the great Milton says, almost subdues my patience.
      8. Matthew Capozzoli (@djtomhanks)
        July 31, 2013 at 6:04am
        Dont worry dude: these people are just so terrified at the thought of losing their free music....heaven forbid anyone go to the record store and buy some of those new underground albums from that hot young band the genome,,,hahahah, bunch of cheapskates. if you care about independent music, go to the show when they come to your town and buy a t-shirt. or better yet, start writing to companies and suggesting they use your favorite genetic gnome track (its still just as funny: its a miracle, the genome!!! science gone haywire!) in their next car commercial because those are the only ways these bands make any money. I'm diggin all over trying to find some actual numbers from these guys and what do you know? nowhere to be found.
      9. Todd willcut
        October 16, 2013 at 3:56pm
        Just for the record, I have in fact worked for Muzak in the past for about 5 years. It was actually one of the best jobs I ever had. The gross misconception among the general public that Muzak is just dull instrumental "elevator music" is so far from the truth that its staggering. Muzak is actually a music service that utilizes Dish Network satellite dishes to provide over 130 channels of any kind of music you can think of. From hard core metal to contemporary Christian, Hip-Hop to Big Band and everything in between. What you "normally" hear is whatever the store owners decide to put the receiver on and therefore should not reflect on the company that provides the service any at all. So, even though i feel like you were trying to make a slandering comment towards an awesome company, you accidentally made a pretty rational statement. Pandora and Muzak are fairly similar, they both provide a service that pumps out any kind of music you might want to hear (with some exceptions obviously, no company is going to be able to provide everyone everything they want.), the major differences are that Pandora streams over the internet and Muzak uses satellite, and Pandora is primarily used for individuals where as Muzak is designed for Public consumption, and pays ASCAP and BMI as such. Sorry for the lengthy response, it just gets to me sometimes to hear everybody bash Muzak when they are in fact a great company providing a great service and are portrayed in a bad light because of what they're customers choose to listen to.
      10. tinsley
        January 10, 2014 at 8:48am
        Muzak???? You must be programming the wrong stations... you do realize you decide what you listen to on Pandora don't you? Don't you?
    2. David Hessler
      October 24, 2013 at 2:06pm
      Moderated talk discussion sounds worthwhile. You ight want to set some times for different subjects. I discovered pandora two years ago, after 60 years of avid listening and being involved with two bands. Pandora changed my life. It opened a whole new knowledge of artists and composers, bands and styles. I like mostly classical and jazz, with show tunes and dance music. There are so many things that haven't even been tried yet. Tim is just getting started. New is always panned by the established, especially if their customers are getting what they want from a new source.
    3. NP
      March 18, 2014 at 11:29pm
      The current overhead to profit ration of personal internet radio companies (i.e. Pandora, Spotify, Itunes) is incomparable to AM/FM stations. Moreover, the nation-wide range of transmission and ability to appeal to a diverse range of listeners by offering music from every genre is diminishing the ratings and revenue of AM/FM broadcasters. Pandora profited over 300 million dollars last year, but it will never be enough, since every corporation must be obsessed with growth in order to maintain the interest of investors (stock doesn't increase in value if there is no growth), which leaves little room for loyalty to musicians. Being a music lover, I feel that it is important that we ensure that musicians have the incentive and financial ability to devote themselves to their art. With the recent failed effort of Soundexchange to procure decent mechanical royalties, I think that musicians, songwriters, producers, publishers, and recording labels should combine their efforts and resources to create a nonprofit internet radio company which pays out all net profit as royalties. Musicians would gladly submit their music and promote the company since it would be the most profitable means for them to get through to an online-audience. A nonprofit company could employ volunteer interns to categorize music and create a genome. Pandora currently gets a larger share of the profit than artists do and must pay taxes on over $300 million of revenue per year, but in a nonprofit company, this would all benefit people who actually had a hand in producing the music rather than shareholders, and the seemingly useless Soundexchange could be cut out as well.
  2. Hugh
    June 26, 2013 at 5:44pm
    I've always enjoyed Pandora mostly for the more independent released tunes, that it puts out through the genome. Hopefully now that you guys have purchased terrestrial spectrum it will allow Pandora the same royalty rights as iHeart, which aside from the ability to reach terrestrial stream, is inferior to what Pandora offers(repetition on custom channels far exceeds Pandora). I'd love to see Pandora work even more with thethe
    1. Samantha
      July 12, 2013 at 10:42pm
      long but intresting
  3. Hugh
    June 26, 2013 at 5:52pm
    I've always enjoyed Pandora mostly for the more independent released tunes, that it puts out through the genome. Hopefully now that you guys have purchased terrestrial spectrum it will allow Pandora the same royalty rights as iHeart, which aside from the ability to reach terrestrial stream, is inferior to what Pandora offers(repetition on custom channels far exceeds Pandora). I'd love to see Pandora continue to do more advance listenings of albums and further leverage itself as place to go for independent labels/artists and releases...and oh, by the way, while here we can also tune into the more commercial side of the industry. Might provide a lift in tsl and translate into even more subscribers. Providing even more value in the eyes of the industry and advertisers. Love the P!
  4. Richard McCargar
    June 26, 2013 at 6:27pm
    Pandora is not advocating a drop of 85%, it is “advocating solutions that would grow total payments to artists." This does not confirm that you are not trying to reduce the rate of payment to artists, only that you are not reducing by 85%, and that in being an active growing company, you will pay more in “total payments to artists.” It could be read this way; more total payments to artists by way of a larger pie made up of greatly-reduced individual payments. The next point is the same radio made decades ago to make zero payment to artists, and is rejected by most now: “We give them a platform…” That is no gift, it is the partial incentive to put your music there, along with royalties. It doesn’t fly any better now than it did decades ago when it was forced upon artists. No doubt you explained during the $200+ Million offering that you could generate significant income with rates as they were currently structured. You likely convinced investors that you were capable of competing with the current rates. Why the change of heart now that you have the $200 Million? Would you not be better served by joining with artists to force the increase of payments by radio and satellite to a more payment, than to reduce the payments being made now in your effort to be "more competitive." Imagine your future marketing as an ally of the artists, rather than as "management" in a labor dispute. Kevin Rose (Digg) well understands how impossible it is to recover fickle members once lost.
    1. dbgarf
      June 27, 2013 at 10:35am
      so what's your point? that Pandora should unilaterally offer higher payment rates to artists? and what do the artists unilaterally give to Pandora in return for that better payment?
    2. John
      June 27, 2013 at 10:36am
      Richard, I think you miss the point on your last comment about making satellite and terrestrial radio increase their payments. While that may be the utopian solution, its also an up hill battle which one company alone cannot win - it requires changing legislation which was originally lobbied and put in place by a conglomerate of companies on the other side of the argument with far greater resources. Leveling the playing field for equality is the first step. Once that is accomplished, then Pandora can work from within the system to change it and has a stronger voice to do so.
      1. Richard McCargar
        June 27, 2013 at 5:05pm
        My main point is that this is all cover for what they are actually doing, which is trying to lower their payment to the artists who create the music which is the sole reason they have this platform. I already pointed out the fact that while he says he is attempting to pay artists more, that is cover for what he is actually trying to do, pay them less per play than he is paying now. The only way he wants to pay "more" is by growing his business, and admirable goal, but it is to be done on the backs of the artists by lowering their per-play amount.
    3. justincolletti614
      June 27, 2013 at 6:06pm
      Hear, hear Richard! Perfectly said.
  5. davidclowery
    June 26, 2013 at 7:11pm
    If you and your company are so "cool" and cooperative towards artists then why did your company issue this statement that appears to be an outright lie as to what I said in my blog? “Mr. Lowery’s calculations grossly understate Pandora’s payments to songwriters. In truth, Pandora paid many times more in songwriter royalties to play the song referenced in his article. Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/26/pandora-responds-to-pink-floyd/#0RliP333lIAHbMHy.99 I did not grossly understate the royalties paid to my co-authors as your company has claimed. The total amount netted by the three songwriters is $42.225. I have their statements right in front of me. In what through-the -looking-glass-world is the actual amount paid to the songwriters a gross understatement? Further I have not been fed lies or misinformation from the RIAA, Communist Party, Trilateral Commision, The Blue Horse at the Denver Airport or some other real or imagined bogey man as you just suggested. I'm an independent thinker, a former mathematician and computer programmer. I arrived at my conclusions and opinions by carefully examining royalty statements, SEC filings and reams of other data. If you want to have an honest conversation with artists you should start by not insinuating they are liars or helpless creatures who or easily misinformed.
    1. DM
      June 27, 2013 at 7:23am
      would love to see a response to this!
      1. Ken Dardis
        June 27, 2013 at 8:32am
        David Lowery calling out Pandora on this is like have Pravda speak about democracy in Russia. Lowery's article comparing amounts paid by Pandora and broadcasters is fiction; and if he is "a former mathematician" he has forgotten the rule of Cumulative Addition when equating a payment from Pandora with payment from broadcasters (the latter being an incalculable number if trying to compare "per spin"). I wrote a response to Mr. Lowery, only to find that he does not post responses on his web site that reflect the truth when it is in contrast to his RIAA based spin on this subject. Still "awaiting moderation" on his web site are these words, posted June 26, 2013 at 6:53 pm: “Artist’s Expectations Need to Change, Too” “In one passage, Mr. Lowery states: “For you civilians webcasting rates are ‘compulsory’ rates. They are set by the government (crazy, right?).” Yes, that’s exactly what was argued in 1998, 2001, 2005, 2009, and is still being argued today with no support from broadcasters (until it became apparent they would be asked to match the amount). The problem is that if it were not set by the government, Mr. Lowery would find his music’s worth close to zero today, due to the economics principle of supply and demand. Times change, such that we do have an out-of-whack system for musicians to make money. But it’s the reality of today, to be accepted or challenged – and I have no problem when it’s challenged as long as the “challenge” applies equally to all music-based businesses. In Mr. Lowery’s case, it does not.” The full article is at http://www.audiographics.com/agd/062613-1.htm
    2. Shannon
      June 27, 2013 at 9:34am
      David, I think you are conveniently forgetting to mention the amount that your chosen publisher takes before you are paid (which is over 50%). If you follow the math, Pandora paid over $1,300 in royalties for your million spins, and $97 to you, your fellow songwriters, and your publisher. In either case, it qualifies as "many times more." Here is a link to the math: http://theunderstatement.com/post/53867665082/pandora-pays-far-more-than-16-dollars All for the equivalent of a single FM radio station play.
    3. ergu
      June 27, 2013 at 9:43am
      David, The reason why Pandora exists in the first place is because the recording companies that comprise RIAA are not adequately offering your music to the people who want to hear it. That is a simple fact of markets. If the RIAA adequately served you as an artist, nobody would have any interest in listening to a third party. Pandora is offering you less than you feel you deserve, partially because of the RIAA's choice to treat Pandora as a hostile entity. If RIAA wanted your music to be fairly distributed to the market that you seek, then they would make every effort to pursue an effective partnership with Pandora. You have somehow gotten lost in the weeds on this one. Dollar for dollar, what you get paid and by whom is irrelevant. The fact that your music WILL absolutely fade into obscurity under the watch of the old guard, and that those like Pandora COULD give your work the immortality that might deserve, is what matters most.
      1. justincolletti614
        June 27, 2013 at 6:20pm
        Define "adequately". Anyone wants a copy of any of David's albums can easily buy them in a heartbeat. Is this "inadequate" because the price is not "free"? The music us readily available, instantaneously, to anyone who wants it, anywhere in the world. It's also available to free to the consumer on Spotify and Pandora. We clearly have different definitions of the word "adequate". And based on his records, he's actually played *more*, not less on terrestrial radio and satellite, so it's very much available there as well. (Not to mention, unlike Pandora and Spotify, both of those outlets have been proven to drive sales.)
    4. Dennis
      June 27, 2013 at 9:48am
      It's a 20 year old song. The fair price would be $0 after 5 years.
      1. justincolletti614
        June 27, 2013 at 6:23pm
        A fair market price is the price the market is willing to pay. Mr. Westergren is asking that that Congress step in and lower the market prices because he doesn't like them. Terrestrial radio succeeded at this in the past, and musicians are still hurting from it. We're not going to allow the new system to be as bad or worse than the old one. It's just not going to happen on our watch.
  6. K
    June 26, 2013 at 8:05pm
    Keep up! I love Pandora, you guys change my life in a better way with music, I so much enjoy your music and different artist that didn't know they existed.... Thanks for creating Pandora, is the best ever than normal radio!....
  7. michael h
    June 26, 2013 at 8:32pm
    tim, i have been a pandora fan for years - you actually personally replied and sent me a t-shirt in the start up days - and i still support your company vision to this day. anyone with half a brain who looks at the RIAA and labels in comparison to the artists themselves will realize how heavily weighted the system and payments are to everyone but the people actually making the music. it's sad. and many great musicians have not been able to continue recording or performing because of it. i appreciate you continuing to keep pandora a fantastic experience and work for the artists. the amount of new music i've personally discovered on pandora is staggering - far more than via FM radio - and i've purchased more music because of your service. keep it up, Tim, and keep fighting the good fight.
    1. justincolletti614
      June 27, 2013 at 6:29pm
      Mr Westergren us currently cashing in to the tune of $1M a month. How is that arrangement not grossly weighted in the favor of management and "the middleman"? At $1M in personal income a month, you can hand out a lot of free T-Shirts. That does not make a person a freedom fighter or a friend of artists. As Mr Lowery says, "Meet the New Boss -- Worse Than the Old Boss?" We'll have to wait and see. If Mr Westergren wants to join artists in making terrestrial radio pay a more sustainable rate, and work to ensure that Pandora drives album sales instead of cannibalizing them, then musicians would welcome him with open arms. He decided to do the opposite.
  8. Curious Confucius (@fansntt)
    June 26, 2013 at 8:44pm
    Thanks to Pandora for not only delivering a great selection of songs but doing so with non-intrusive ads and giving us more control over what we want to listen. Your ranking system is nice and your stations are very accurate by playing songs that matches my taste. Thanks to Pandora I have discovered artists that are great but due to red tape they haven't made it mainstream yet. I see why the RIAA and some radio stations may be scared, because they should. We have more options these days and do not have to settle for what very few wants us to listen. Thanks to Pandora I can drive to work listening a wide variety of songs without having to either spent 98% of my commute listening to never ending talk shows and 50 commercials per segment or listening to my CD over and over again. Kudos!
    1. justincolletti614
      June 27, 2013 at 6:36pm
      The reason that Pandora's ads ate unintrusive is that they're keeping them that way for now to gain market share. Currently, their profits are not good. They have three choices here: One is to raise revenue by selling more ads. This is what terrestrial radio does. Another option is to raise revenue by charging subscriptions. This is what Satellite radio does. The third option is to cut costs by lowering pay and reducing the number of jobs that offer a living wage. That's the one that they went with. In my opinion, it's the most vile and Walmart-like of the three, and eats at the middle class of musicians. (Of course, they could also cut CEO pay and VP salaries, but who are we kidding? They're just like the old guard in that respect. Potentially, worse. We just don't know yet.)
  9. Navid Zohoury (@NavidZohoury)
    June 26, 2013 at 10:42pm
    Great piece. Glad to be hearing such fervor in your post. This will be a long fight as there is billions of dollars at stake. However, I truly feel Pandora is on the right side of history while the industry attempts to cling to every ounce of power they have left. Best of luck.
  10. Eric J
    June 26, 2013 at 10:45pm
    Thank you for this well written explanation. I hope you are able to come to an intelligent compromise on this issue. There is a lot riding on the precedent it will set. From this post, It sounds like you have good intentions, as an artist yourself, I believe you do. Best of luck!
    1. justincolletti614
      June 27, 2013 at 6:41pm
      I hope for an intelligent compromise too and hope that Mr Westergren stops his attempts to ask Congress to step in to these nevotiations and smash musicians' bargaining power. As a former musician, he must know what that looks like. Even if his intentions are good, you know what they say about those and the road to hell. If Mr Westergren were honestly negotiating with artists instead of running to Congress to ask for special favors (or to cement the worst excesses of the old guard into the new millennium) then artists would be much more likely to believe that he was interested in true compromise. At the moment, that's a hard sell.

Reply to davidclowery Cancel Reply

Please complete all required fields.
Required fields marked with *. No worries, your email address will not be published.
Leave a reply