Copyright License Fees Drive Pandora Out of Canada 254
An anonymous reader writes "Online streaming music services such as Pandora are abandoning plans to launch in Canada, claiming licensing fees are too high: 'These rates ... are astronomical,' Tim Westergren, founder of California-based Pandora, wrote in an email to The Canadian Press. The agency that collects music royalties in Canada on behalf of record companies and performing artists wants to charge web-based music sites that stream to mobile devices the greater of two figures: 45 per cent of the site's gross revenues in Canada or 7.5-tenths of a cent for every song streamed. Meanwhile, record labels are blaming the lack of online music services in Canada on piracy: 'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which represents major record labels."
But I do pay for it (Score:5, Insightful)
I buy blank CD-Rs, as do so many other people I know of. The cost of music is built in those. Once you have a stack of CD-Rs, you are no longer able to pirate music in Canada, as long as you only leech. It's the law. They made it. If they don't like it, tough.
What about indie labels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fools and their folly (Score:5, Insightful)
45% of revenues is particularly weird (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're running a cost-free operation, with no employees, servers, or bandwidth, gross revenues are not equal to profit. Say that you have a low-cost operation and 70% of gross revenues are profit, though. That means that the recording industry wants a licensing fee of 2/3 of your profits? And even 70% is pretty good; it's not uncommon to be running profit margins that are 45% of revenues or less, in which case the recording industry would actually be taking all of your profit, plus possibly more.
Figures. (Score:5, Insightful)
The agency that collects music royalties in Canada on behalf of record companies and performing artists wants to charge web-based music sites that stream to mobile devices the greater of two figures: 45 per cent of the site's gross revenues in Canada or 7.5-tenths of a cent for every song streamed. Meanwhile, record labels are blaming the lack of online music services in Canada on piracy: 'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?
Now we all know who the real music pirates are.
Re:Fools and their folly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Heh (Score:1, Insightful)
Pandora used to be good, but as of recently, they have been tossing 15-30 second ad spots between each song, and that is even when you are not using their skip forward feature.
Oh boohoo. You expect them to just give you stuff for free with no way to make any money for it?
Re:Just buy CDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really a replacement.
The value offered by Pandora or a service like it is that you discover music that you've never heard but probably will like.
Ripping my own is only useful for music I already know I like.
Piracy is not the problem. It is greed. (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to buy a lot more music on iTunes when it was 99 cents but now, with variable pricing, virtually all songs on the Canadian iTunes are 1.29 CAD each so I have stopped buying so much.
The record companies need to stop running their businesses like they are some big movie studio and start finding ways to save money so that they can offer music for less and offer artists less money upfront but more royalties for each song sold electronically.
The old model of upfront contracts will not work anymore in this new digital world.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
You're quite happy with all your music imposed with restrictive DRM that doesn't allow to be played on any device you want?
What DRM restrictive music? iTunes has been DRM-free for more than a year and any DRM that happens to be on the occasional CD is easily stripped and you can back it up to whatever format you want. So exactly what part of the GP's post were you responding to with this nonsense?
Re:Slacker (Score:3, Insightful)
What's Slacker Hardware? I think I may have a patent on that from my school days.
>>>45 per cent of the site's gross revenues in Canada or 7.5-tenths of a cent for every song streamed.
0.0075 times 60 million songs per month == $450,000 (CAN). Or 45% of revenue collected, which is outrageous. No wonder Pandora decided they could no longer continue. I suspect music companies are secretly run by people with IQs below 90. That's why they keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Why would you spend a lot of money ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?"
I think the question companies are asking themselves is "Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when fees paid to the CRIA make it impossible to make a profit from such a service"?
It's the lack of decent cost-effective services (we're already paying lots for our music with fees on media) that drives everyone in Canada to use file sharing services in the first place.
De Facto (Score:3, Insightful)
Piracy is the de facto reason given for not doing something in these industries. "We aren't developing this video game title for the PC platform due to piracy concerns", "We aren't offering this broadcasting service because of piracy concerns"... it's a never ending guilt trip. If there's a demand for something and you can't/won't fill that demand for whatever reason, blame piracy!
Vicious Cycle (Score:2, Insightful)
How are Canadian music lovers supposed to pay for music if no one builds a service to do so?
Re:Henderson is a liar (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not out of touch.
He's double dipping. He wants to get paid that extra surcharge on recording media (CD-Rs and MP3s) -and- also lock everything up behind paywalls like US-RIAA does. Typical litigious, back-stabbing, greedy motherfucker.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
the infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of CRIA.
The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences...... Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment.
Bastards.
How DARE they accuse us Joe Nobodies of being "pirates" while they aren't even paying their OWN employees, the singers and musicians? Fucking, fucking hypocritical bastards.
Smart (Score:4, Insightful)
'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association...
Smart. Very smart. Rather than adopt a business model of offering affordable alternatives which most people would be happy to go with they're going to cut off their noses to spite their faces. They're happier to take 45% of nothing rather than a reasonable licensing fee of a reasonable price.
These people are so utterly daft that the mind absolutely boggles. Is it any wonder that they are incapable of adapting to a new technological age and prospering in that age? sigh...
The worst part is these individuals are getting rich from high salaries while the rapidly drive their industries into the toilet. And, once everything gets flushed away, these individuals will walk away with their vast savings and live happily ever after while they've demolished an industry and left it in the stone ages.
sigh...
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1, Insightful)
No, I must say, I find their practices perfectly acceptable! The next time you get attacked in a file sharing suite, just tell them "I've put all songs on my list, but it isn't a productive use of my time to find and pay all the owners".
Re:Vicious Cycle (Score:3, Insightful)
You read the Facebook updates from Spotify posted by your European friends. And then cry because you do not have Spotify.
Re:But I do pay for it (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the law and the courts disagree with you on that point, seeding does make you a distributor. If you don't have a license to distribute, then you're infringing, period.
Straight downloading without resorting to P2P is the way to go, absolutely no-one has ever been sued for just downloading.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Incredible.
If I pulled the same stunt, my home would be raided, my computers would be seized, and my name would be splashed all over the media as a professional pirate. I might even score jail time.
The big four labels in CRIA? Barely a whimper in the press. I hope they get smacked in the courts.
Re:Heh (Score:2, Insightful)
And not available to Canadians.
Re:How fucking stupid are you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Without government intervention, you have the natural right to copy anything and no one can stop you short of intimidation or physical intervention.
Without government intervention, I would have a natural right (widely known as "might is right") to put a gun to your head and squeeze the trigger, and no-one could stop me short of intimidation or physical intervention.
Re:How fucking stupid are you? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with that argument is that killing someone deprives another person of their rights while copying does not.
It rests solely on your particular list of "natural" rights (which is all but natural, as none of the "natural" rights can actually be enjoyed without a society with a mechanism for their enforcement). For example, if you consider author's right to be natural - and a lot of societies do, and have been doing that for centuries - then clearly copying deprives them of it.