Hacker News Reader

Comment by gravitronic | Hacker News Reader

That's a really shitty golden goose.

Does that even matter? Since the marginal effort on the part of the performer is exactly zero? (which is to say they don't have to "do" anything to be on Pandora, they just collect checks from BMI/ASCAP). If a musician is arguing that they are being driven into poverty by poor royalties, losing them completely seems to make them worse off.

Your argument applies retrospectively to past creations, not prospectively to future creations.

Also, eliminating Pandora might (or might not) increase royalties via other media.

I would argue eliminating the streaming services would more likely make the pie smaller. I don't think all the people paying x a month or ads supported are going to suddenly start buying albums.

Compared to what, FM radio? Which pays NOTHING?

Artists, get over yourself. The market is huge now, and your product value is approaching zero. But keep on flailing in the noose.

EDIT: Half credit. Per dllthomas, "Per the article, FM radio pays royalties to the songwriter but not the performers."

FM radio pays royalties.

Per the article, FM radio pays royalties to the songwriter but not the performers.

Its reverse. Record industry pays to have their songs played on the air there's even term for it, payola.

Huh, so that's where the term comes from. Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

At my latest gig (new media), my employment agreement actually has a whole section on payola. #TheMoreYouKnow

Forbidding or encouraging? :-P

Definitely forbidding :-D

Plastic goose?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com