Pandora to Congress: Vote now, we're running out of time
The congressional vote regarding royalty fees for Internet radio has been moved at the last minute to 11 a.m. EDT Saturday, according to Pandora, one of the start-ups that has been pushing for this vote in the wake of pressure from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).
"It has to happen tomorrow," Pandora chief technology officer Tom Conrad said in an interview with CNET News on Friday night. The start-up has put up a blog post encouraging fans and users to call their congressional representatives through the night to support the cause. "The timing issue that's critical here is that many of the Internet radio providers, Pandora included, for financial reasons really need to have this issue resolved before 2009." Additionally, members of Congress will soon be on the campaign trail for their own re-elections and are already occupied by the Wall Street crisis.
To put it more bluntly, the Internet radio services could run out of money before a resolution is reached.
Earlier on Friday, it was revealed that the NAB had been lobbying members of Congress to halt legislation that would keep up talks between the Internet radio services and SoundExchange, which represents record labels and performers.
Conrad said that "it's not clear" as to what the NAB's motivations are, but speculated that it might be because the trade group feels threatened by the rise of Internet radio. "They operate the broadcast towers all over the country," he said. NAB insisted earlier on Friday that speeding up the negotiations would be rushed and unbalanced.
Pandora CEO Tim Westergren said in an August interview with The Washington Post that last year's Web radio royalty hike would consume 70 percent of Pandora's revenue and that the start-up could be close to shutting down as a result. Some allegations of "Chicken Little" melodrama ensued, but Conrad assured CNET News on Friday that the company did not regret those remarks.
"I think our message all along for the 18 months we've been negotiating this has been dramatic perhaps, but certainly not hyperbole," Conrad said. "Pandora's a venture-backed company. Without some kind of change, there's just no way for our investors to feel like it's a good investment."
Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline. 
Tom
CTO @ Pandora
Be careful what you ask for... you may get it: nobody buying music that they can no longer listen to means no money for you, no money for labels, no money for artists--exactly what you, and they, deserve.
Copyright is a good thing. But hiding under the umbrella that you own the music and you control the rights to how someone uses content after they legally purchased it is wrong. If I buy a song and want to share it with the world well, I ought to have that right. If you do not like it stop making digital music and go back to records.
I would be glad to start up a company and I will promote sharing of the music. Share with the world I will make plenty of money, I encourage sharing if it was my label. People will buy from me because they want to make more music, get my point!
People will buy from me because they want my company to make more more music, get the point!
To twotall610: it's not the strong who will survive this attack on our personal histories, it's the *unattached* If you can't live without your music, they've got you by the short hairs
To ofmyony: If you try to start up a company now that promotes sharing of music, it will go bankrupt, as so many have and are. Until the laws have changed or the RIAA is gone, investors won't invest in your music sharing company, so unless you're a bazillionaire... no company. There are artists who want an audience, and audiences who want what the artists produce, but the RIAA stands between them and prevents the market from happening.
- by enovikoff September 27, 2008 10:31 AM PDT
- The "musicians making and distributing their own music" is a nice blue-sky fantasy if you assume that all people are interested in listening to is music that will be written and performed in the future. For those of you top-40 junkies, this may be the case, since last month's top songs are already in the dustheap of history. But most people associate music with the history of their lives, and want to listen to music they have heard before. This music is owned by the RIAA labels, and they're holding the world hostage with it. Essentially the RIAA's approach is "Give us all your money, or we'll take away your life history in sound." The internet radio debacle is just another part of this same strategy. This is why Pandora won't survive unless the royalty rates drop: they need to have a demonstratable income stream, and music that will be created in the future isn't it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)To twotall610: it's not the strong who will survive this attack on our personal histories, it's the *unattached* If you can't live without your music, they've got you by the short hairs
To ofmyony: If you try to start up a company now that promotes sharing of music, it will go bankrupt, as so many have and are. Until the laws have changed or the RIAA is gone, investors won't invest in your music sharing company, so unless you're a bazillionaire... no company. There are artists who want an audience, and audiences who want what the artists produce, but the RIAA stands between them and prevents the market from happening.