2012-09-24T14:26:28Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/78884 2012-09-24T14:26:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-09-24:/comment/260655 Acymerman This bill is also known as the "Internet Radio Fairness Act" and essentially will prevent internet radio companies like Pandora from having to pay nearly half of their gross revenue in royalty fees as other companies like Sirius XM or radio stations pay less than 10% or nothing at all (the latter applying to radio broadcasts not internet or satellite). This should help foster growth in this area and hopefully help all of internet radio users access our music a bit more cheaply. :) This is what Pandora has to say: http://blog.pandora.com/pandora/archives/2012/09/join-us-to-stop.html I recommend that anyone interested Google "Internet Radio Fairness Act" and then make your own decision. 2012-09-26T22:39:15Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-09-26:/comment/260684 jvaldez I disagree - Sirius XM and even Spotify use more advertising and/or user subscription fees to offset their costs and prop up their revenue model. Pandora is basically asking the federal government to fix the rates to make them more favorable to them, so they don't have to use more advertising to bolster the bottom line. This is bad legislature. 2012-10-01T16:51:48Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-10-01:/comment/260702 stewey2000 I agree with jvaldez, the satellite radio stations had to buy satellite time to provide their own service, so they should have to have a higher price, pandora uses the connection someone else is already paying for. It makes sense they would have different profit margins, the are providing different services, one is radio everywhere, the other is radio within range of a cell tower or internet connection. 2012-10-02T23:17:41Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-10-02:/comment/260705 deterb From what I've seen, boosting revenue won't solve the issues that the streaming companies were referring to - 50% of any revenue increases would (still) go to the copyright holders. This legislation is designed to put them in the same category, rather than a special one. Note that I am also in support of increasing the rates as a whole, as long as ny profits coming from a rate increase go directly to the artists, not to the publishers. 2012-10-07T09:46:06Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-10-07:/comment/260734 CitizenKate I have a different perspective than jvaldez and supporters. In short, it's "So what?" If I sell, say... a software program - but it could be any kind of widget - that companies buy and use to make money, I don't adjust the pricing of my product based on how much more or less they have to spend than other companies to use the program, or, whether they have other sources of revenue to supplement what they earn using my program. Most people would think that's outrageous. It's really none of my business as a vendor how client companies do business as long as they satisfy my licensing requirements. That would not make sense in any other industry; why should it be any different for the music industry? 2012-10-07T09:48:44Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-10-07:/comment/260736 CitizenKate (Oops - sorry for the duplicate!) 2012-10-07T09:47:44Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-10-07:/comment/260735 CitizenKate I have a different perspective than jvaldez and supporters. In short, it's "So what?" If I sell, say... a software program - but it could be any kind of widget - that companies buy and use to make money, I don't adjust the pricing of my product based on how much more or less they have to spend than other companies to use the program, or, whether they have other sources of revenue to supplement what they earn using my program. Most people would think that's outrageous. It's really none of my business, as a vendor, how client companies do business as long as they satisfy my licensing requirements. That would not make sense in any other industry; why should it be any different for the music industry? 2012-11-09T10:57:37Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-11-09:/comment/260837 nfultz1 Actually, price discrimination can be illegal. This bill has very little to do with revenue models and everything to do with the rate paid by one customer versus another with the only distinction being the method of distribution. Under current law a song broadcast to 1 million people over satellite or air waves costs less royalties than a song broadcast to 1 million people over the internet. I could see the reason for a price difference if the song was supplied on demand, but that's not the case. 2012-11-09T10:58:45Z tag:opencongress.org,2012-11-09:/comment/260838 nfultz1 Furthermore this law has nothing to do with the overall rate that should be paid to publishers and writers. If the overall amount is too low, it should be raised, but it should be raised for everyone. The internet is the future of content distribution, and under the current laws we are ultimately just impeding consumer preference. This law will benefit more than just Pandora. In fact, long-term it will increase competition as more companies will be able to justify the decision. Also, it will likely lead to more listening hours and royalties for the music industry.