Comments
Mr. Wyden, as a composer and working recording artist, I find your proposed Internet Ra...Read more »
Nicholas C.
Mr. Wyden, as a composer and working recording artist, I find your proposed Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA) riddled with erroneous claims, self-conflicting statements, poor judgement and, frankly, an eye to the interest of a specific group of share holders—who are not the originators of original, copyright protected work. I'm writing today to demand you rescind pursuit of this poorly constructed act of legislation. The impact the IRFA will have on the digital market will be to provide fiscal freedom from responsibility to Internet broadcasters, enabling them to gain deeper profit from music broadcast. What is implied, yet not clarified, is that this profit will come at the expense of the originating artists and copyright holders. I will break down the IRFA proposal below to illuminate a few of its many flaws. To begin, the language of the IRFA proposal is vague and does not elaborate in areas that must be made absolutely clear in legislation of new fields and new technologies. The IRFA claims that it will "enable new webcasters to start up and create jobs and increase competition in the music marketplace." How? What jobs? What kind of competition in the marketplace? Which marketplace? And how will 'other' marketplaces, presumably for music, be impacted? These are large claims, and the methods by which these goals would be achieved are in no way illuminated by the IRFA proposal. The only thing that is clear in the IRFA proposal is support for the interest of "new webcasters." The rest is either over-subtly implied, or nonexistent in the further text of the proposal. The IRFA proposal states, "…royalty rates prescribed for Internet radio are established based on what a panel of special copyright judges determines to be the market rate for musical licenses. But there is no functioning market for these licenses and these judges are left with very little information to make reasonable conclusions," and continues, claiming that Congress routinely intervenes to correct the work of royalty judges. These "judges" are agencies the likes of The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) who have built the very laws and infrastructures that have protected and fed artists for the better part of a century. These agencies were founded when new technologies made music broadcasting possible—their specialty is in protecting artists in times of technological transition. The significant flaw of the IRFA is that it doesn't seek to improve the methods, nor SUPPORT the long standing efforts of copyright judges to protect royalty reimbursements, but effectively undermines copyright judges work and redistributes royalties according to a special interest—presumably that of "new webcasters." The IRFA effectively releases restrictions on server-based duplication and Internet broadcast of an artist's work. ASCAP and BMI have pursued royalty fees from Internet broadcasting based on the constituency of listeners; the IRFA makes duplication, i.e. pirated copying, legal for Corporate Broadcasters and eliminates a number-based audience count. Internet broadcasts are rated, in the text of the IRFA, "fives times the amount of royalties—as a percentage of revenue—as other digital music broadcasts like satellite and cable" because webcasts easily reach five times more than other digital services. That is the nature of the Internet, Mr. Wyden. Royalty judges make their decisions based on very specific information, much of which is supplied by artists themselves. Royalty judges have, in my own personal experience as a music artist, been consistently fair on behalf of copyright holders and music artists. Fair, Mr. Wyden; not excessive, not grasping, not greedy. FAIR. The IRFA is simply poor legislation. It is yet another effort in a long trend of poorly thought-out legislations designed to capitalize on a transitional moment in history. Instead of weaving current and functional legislation into a new context, supporting what already exists to benefit original copyright holders, it aims to create innumerable loopholes by which new entities can profit—at the expense of original copyright owners—and with no restrictions. I urge you to review copyright law and evaluate how that applies to the Internet. The royalty restrictions strongly imposed on digital broadcasters at this time are enforced by organizations whose sole purpose is to protect the work, ideas, and material of their constituents. These organizations, the likes of ASCAP and BMI, have specialized in their field. As a music artist, as a composer protected by ASCAP, this is an issue of massive concern to me. It impacts my potential for livelihood. Kill the IRFA as it stands, and look to how you can serve existing agencies in their effort to secure royalties for original copyright holders.
Mr. Wyden, I trust, that in light of the building artist and songwriter push-back build...Read more »
Joey W.
Mr. Wyden, I trust, that in light of the building artist and songwriter push-back building over the last two months, you will take the time to seriously reconsider this bill. I am a former non-songwriting professional in the music industry. I have seen the toll that the digital age of music has taken on many close friends and associates who have dedicated themselves to the craft of songwriting. Pandora was begun with a noble cause, but its homage to investors has become literally all that matters. I am a businessman. I understand the need for profit, for margin. However, Pandora created a model that was doomed from the start and is now attempting to rectify its mistakes on the backs of creators. Complaining about the already reduced royalty rates and insisting that they be further reduced without offering a clear and acceptable upside to writers and artists (I personally do not believe this is built in to Pandora's true intent) is fairly akin to the pay-to-play mentality that existed in the 80's club scene (you won't make any money but it'll be good for your career). The scenario in which 1% of artists make 99% percent of the money but still allows a Pandora to claim high payouts is simply wrong.
The issues of copyright protection and in fact protection of all intellectual property ...Read more »
Keneth H.
The issues of copyright protection and in fact protection of all intellectual property rights are crucial for the future of the United States economy. With the demise of the large scale industrial manufacturing base and decrease in its corresponding work force our country is faced with a potentially debilitating loss of real jobs for middle class workers. One of the few areas offering the potential for real sustainable growth is the entire area of intellectual property. But like all rights these rights have to be protected. Why does one create and offer to the public any "product"? While the reasons may be multiple and vary for each person with a creative idea, among the reasons ......... at least in the U.S.A....... have historically been the reasonable expectation of compensation, by those that either consume or profit from the consumption of the such creative products, for the person or persons that created those creative products. This is true for not just music, but for books, and films and video games and computer software as well. It will be true for any future as of yet unimaginable forms of human expression and creativity. The litany of abuses of content creators are indeed daunting. But among the worst are not the file sharing among peers, who only give away what they do not own. The worst are those that profit from what they do not own, and then either share a pittance or none of what they earn from what they do not own. This exploitation takes many forms. But let's examine just one: advertising revenue. Folks increasingly access their music via online platforms like Pandora, and Spotify. These online platforms make their money from subscription fees and from advertising revenues, both of which are generated by attracting specific demographics that wish to listen to specific types of content which the online "broadcasters" do not own. Like most of the professional musicians I know, all I want is a fair percentage of the revenue my music generates. If no one streams, downloads, listens to, purchases or broadcasts my music, my music will die a benign death. But the so called Internet Radio Fairness Act (S.3609) will only make things far worse for content creators, both now and in the future. Pandora may be paying a much higher percentage of the revenues generated by content they do not own than their competitor Spotify currently pays, but that is no justification for lowering Pandora's rates to those of Spotify. Instead, those of Spotify should be raised. In an industry where the ad rates supposedly reflect the value of the content, why are the percentages lower for the lower ad rates and higher for higher ad rates? If my music is used in the Super Bowl, I get a larger percentage of the huge ad rates the Super Bowl generates, but I get a lower percentage of the lower ad rates for use of the same piece of music on a local evening news broadcast. It's a bit like charging different prices for gasoline based on the size, make, color or fuel efficiency of different cars at the same gas station. While we desperately need some uniformity in remuneration, especially among similar platforms, when it comes to the Internet Fairness Act, I must strongly urge its defeat, as it will not only not solve the real problems facing our industry, but it will in fact make things far worse for content creators.
Pandora’s principal asset is music. By virtue of the fact that they are a multimi...Read more »
Gerald H.
Pandora’s principal asset is music. By virtue of the fact that they are a multimillion dollar company and the average musician whose music is their lifeblood barely make 3 cent per song play is prepostorous. Why is this company asking Congress once again to step in and gut the royalties that thousands of musicians rely upon? That’s not fair and that’s not how partners work together. Congress has many pressing issues to consider, but this is not one of them. Let’s work this out as partners and continue to bring fans the great musical experience they rightly expect. I am absolutely against Pandora's current strategies.
Senator Wyden, thank you for introducing the Internet Fairness Act of 2012. It is by fa...Read more »
Timothy M.
Senator Wyden, thank you for introducing the Internet Fairness Act of 2012. It is by far the best bill relating to the enabling of innovation in the Internet economy. The current policy requires internet radio companies like Pandora to pay upwards of 11 cents per song that is played. Because of such, Pandora has never made a profit in any quarter of its existence. What the opposition needs to understand is that if this bill is not passed, Pandora, as well as all Internet radio companies, will be forced into backrupcy. If this happens, not only will 1000s of people lose their jobs, but the royalty rate musicians will get from Internet radio will be effectively zero because Internet radio will not be commercially available.
Innovation is important. Our musicians are important. Music is value. Do not allow roya...Read more »
Jorge R.
Innovation is important. Our musicians are important. Music is value. Do not allow royalty rates to be lowered and cause extreme financial hardship to all hard working musicians. May the people speak.
Senator Wyden, I congratulate you on your choice of name for the bill. However, this bi...Read more »
Shawn M.
Senator Wyden, I congratulate you on your choice of name for the bill. However, this bill is more than fair to Pandora. As of their last report, one of their executives is earning 4.4 million dollars a year while their payouts to individual artists have been negligible. Once again, this is a case of Internet dinosaurs getting stuck in another tarpit. The "build a user base off the back of other people's music", "attack those people when they try to assert their legal rights", "launch your IPO and cash out your stock" and finally "sell the company to a bigger player like Google or Clear Channel" model just isn't working for songwriters and artists in this country. All the value, as usual, is being sucked up by the broadcasters. We need justice for real American creators, so I urge you to support your colleague, Congressman Nadler, on his recently drafted FIRST Act. Thank you.
Please, please, please rethink your position on this attempt to subvert the rights of t...Read more »
Gary H.
Please, please, please rethink your position on this attempt to subvert the rights of the citizens of this country. There are no shackles preventing internet radio from becoming viable, unless the need to actually _pay_ for the product you redistribute is a shackle (and it's not, in my opinion). Most of what is stated in the paragraph at the top of this page is propoganda promulgated by thieving companies such as Google, which are only interested in (ab)using the products produced by artists (musicians, authors, filmmakers) without actually compenstating the creators for their goods. We already regulations in place (e.g. compulsory licensing) that ensure artists are paid for their work. Any effort to undermine these in not in the best interest of the economy (i.e. anything that results in more money for corporations like Google and Pandora, and less for artists is not a good thing). Regulations, in and of themselves are not a bad thing; please, as a lawmaker, refrain from overarching statements that do not withstand close scrutiny. Please do not criticize the artist/record label model here. It's irrelevant. And do keep in mind that that model has worked for quite some time. If it were not effective and productive for both parties, the record labels would not exist. Please stop trying to tie the internet radio regulations to the decline in record sales. That decline is primarily due to piracy (theft), not some requirement that internet radio stations pay for their product. Frankly, the US is one of very few countries that allow radio airplay without compenstation to artists. That's the real crime here, but no one is complaining about that, are they? Please give the PAC/lobbyist money back to Google, et. al, do your homework to understand both sides of this issue (and recognize that you're being fed a pack of lies based only on self-interest) and remember that your job is supposed to be conducted in the interest of your constituents, _not_ whomever writes the largest check. Please do your research. Google is turning out to be evil, and Pandora is just whiney about an agreement that _they_made_ and no longer care for. Sorry, too bad. Deal with it. Finally, allowing companies to circumvent existing coalitions to get lower prices (i.e. pay lower rates, which is a bad thing for artists, in case that's not clear) and then trying to make it _illegal_ to comment on, much less criticize on those sorts of actions, is jut reprehensible, not to mention seemingly unconstitutional. This bill won't remain law on that count alone (and it shouldn't; this whole idea is abhorrent) so perhaps you should just give up now, go back to square one and find out facts. Google, et. al., shut down SOPA/PIPA via lies and misinformation (which laws would have helped artists) and now are pushing a bill (via lies and misinformation) that also will no help artists. Please, please, please become better informed.
Right now we have a three tiered model with am/fm stations paying nothing and satellite...Read more »
Jim K.
Right now we have a three tiered model with am/fm stations paying nothing and satellite and Internet stations paying different percentages for providing the same content. Different charges depending on how the content is delivered and not on the content itself. Not a level playing field. Why is Internet radio popular and companies such as Pandora flourish? You can tailor the music to your musical tastes, create your our musical jukebox. Thus negating the need to purchase music traditionally. A fair compensation plan would be to price all transmission media the same. Increase the pricing structure due to how much control the listener has over individual artists and songs they want to hear. A station that plays all artists in a particular genre would pay the least or nothing as in AM/FM radio now. This would be the same no matter how the content was delivered. The royalties payed would increase by how much control the listener had over the content. 1. No control. Music played by genre. (As Is today by AM/FM stations) Base price or nothing 2. Some control. User is able to control artist they want to listen to. Increase percentage from 1. 3. More control. User can choose artist and songs they want to listen to. Increase percentage from 2. Group 1 does not hurt sales but in fact increases sales. That is why in the fifties radio stations illegally paid radio stations to play artists they wanted to promote. Group 2 has an impact on sales and as such should be priced accordingly. You can only listen to specific artists but not specific songs. Group 3 has almost total control over the content and as such should be priced at a higher rate. In closing pricing should never be governed by how the content is delivered. The pricing should be by the content provided. More service more pay. This puts all services on an even footing.
This bill hurts musicians by saddling them with the costs to subsidize internet radio's...Read more »
Jeremy Z.
This bill hurts musicians by saddling them with the costs to subsidize internet radio's broken business model. If the Congress feels that it is a public benefit to cap musicians' ability to make a living wage, they also need to cap internet company executive pay in tandem. There's no public interest in harming the little guy simply to funnel more cash into internet executives' bonus pools.
I believe that the playing field should be level - that Songwriters, Publishers, and ar...Read more »
Erich D.
I believe that the playing field should be level - that Songwriters, Publishers, and artists should receive equal compensation regardless of medium. To be more specific, I believe that the lion's share of money should be awarded to the "creators" rather than the publishers (The creators can then create deals on their end repaying publishers accordingly), thereby pushing the profit motive beyond the monopolists at every level, and allowing those who consumers know to decide prices for the consumed product. Other than that, I don't believe Pandora or Spotify should be charged more than Clear Channel. Rather, I believe they should even be offered an incentive for leading listeners to new creators, as allowed by the creators. I speak as a consumer; for a creator's view, I recommend James T's reference to Section 5(a)(1)(B).
It was artists who complained about his version of “trickle down innovation&rdquo...Read more »
Stephen P.
It was artists who complained about his version of “trickle down innovation”, not the record companies. In fact, there was not one major label on the IRFA panel–his main opposition came from Patricia Polloch of the American Federation of Musicians and David Lowery of Cracker and Camper Van Beethovan. The artists don’t want his bill. Senator Wyden’s speech writers wrote a speech for him to give in 1999. It does not play in 2012.
As a life long professional songwriter and a recent College Professor teaching songwrit...Read more »
Rick C.
As a life long professional songwriter and a recent College Professor teaching songwriting I am confused why a Senator from Oregon keeps advocating for Bills that benefit only Tech companies and NEVER the creators! I know many songwriters in Oregon and NONE of them think this Bill is good for them. Not to mention that hidden in the language of this Bill is an attempt to muzzle songwriters and Artist's Free Speech... Read the Bill everyone and ask yourself how gutting the earnings and muzzling their Freedom of Speech of Creators is going to get you BETTER music.
Dear Senator, The parties that want this bill are multi-million dollar companies. Pando...Read more »
Billy B.
Dear Senator, The parties that want this bill are multi-million dollar companies. Pandora is an advertising company (that's how they generate revenue) with Wall Street investors. This public company is aggressively lobbying to reduce their supply costs; i.e. the royalties paid to those that make the actual stuff users of Pandora log on to hear. If this bill passes, what happens? Pandora reports greater earnings to its shareholders? Google is finally freed of the "shackles" that have so far inhibited the growth of music distribution platforms like YouTube, Google Play, its locker service, etc? What does innovation promise - free music, all the time, always? The consumer has had this for a DECADE, so why this bill now? Because there's more money to be made - not to the benefit of consumers, but to the benefit a those that are sophisticated enough to know that there is a great return on investment in lobbying for favorable legislation. Why does innovation mean higher margins for your tech constituencies, and what's so innovative about packaging an audience for advertisers? I'm sure the answer rests in the avarice of big, bad music companies, but here's a suggestion: compare the yearly earnings of those that want this bill veresus those that do not. Compare the amounts each company invests in lobbying each year. Please support loaded language like "discriminatory" and "shackles" with some actual data. The is the equivalent of subsidizing energy companies or agro-farming; it's giving additional advantages to oligarchies that already dominante important industries. We love our entertainment so much that we'll blindy support those that promise to give it to us the easiest and cheapest. It defies human nature and American business culture that this sector is predisposed to be kind and generous and always acting in consideration of the broader benefit to society when designing their products and services, but that's what we all seem to think.
Senator Wyden, This is a bad bill that is prejudicial to artists and demonstrates a lac...Read more »
Will B.
Senator Wyden, This is a bad bill that is prejudicial to artists and demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the Senator Wyden. Fair compensation for creative work does not represent a challenge for ISPs, but rather a rethinking of the value of creative content, which is the fuel that drives the internet, not technology. Senator's Wyden position is more about the influence of lobbyists, than being a steward for his constituents. Those who refer to Tech Dirt as a point of reference to make their point, only demonstrate their lack of understanding for reality and integrity. I will be contacting my associates at Weiden & Kennedy in Portland to have further conversations about your efforts to support a bill that supports corporations at the expense of America's rich heritage of music, film, literature, art and photography.
As a musician with music on Pandora, I am opposed to this legislation. Why should music...Read more »
Scot C.
As a musician with music on Pandora, I am opposed to this legislation. Why should musicians be compensated what amounts to NOTHING for their hard work?
This piece of legislation is named incorrectly. It has nothing to do with "Fairness" an...Read more »
Steve M.
This piece of legislation is named incorrectly. It has nothing to do with "Fairness" and everything to do with robbing songwriters of a revenue stream. If I opened a bar/restaurant, I'd know how much food and labor and tablecloths etc. cost. I'd also know how much it costs to get a liquor license. If I didn't factor in those costs, I would soon be out of business. I couldn't change the pre-established price of all those things. Pandora, or any other corporation desiring to make money from music presentation, should have considered all the costs involved. If they didn't, their business should fail. They went ahead anyway, and presented fraudulent projections to their investors. They didn't know what they're doing. They should not be allowed to "fix" their mistakes by robbing songwriters. They've already robbed their investors. Please shut down this attempted theft.
This is a terrible bill. It limits the ability of me to sell my product in a fair and o...Read more »
Noah P.
This is a terrible bill. It limits the ability of me to sell my product in a fair and open market. This is big business buying legislation in the worst way. The amount of money I make from companies like this isn't enough to buy a candy bar and now they want to pass a law to make it less. This is not right. To legislate how much I can charge for my product cannot be constitutional. This is an anti-business, anti-musician, anti-copyright and anti-American bill. Please withdraw your support.
Although I am not an Oregon resident, I, as an American independent musician, appeal to...Read more »
Ryan K.
Although I am not an Oregon resident, I, as an American independent musician, appeal to your power as a US senator to act as equitably and justly as possible on behalf of myself and all musicians in America. I heartily applaud your work in Congress and would love an Internet Radio Fairness Act. This one, however, is grossly mis-titled. Having examined available information about internet streaming services' royalty payment structures, compared existing licensing legislation to that proposed by the IRFA, and studied recent relevant actions taken by interested parties, I must insist that this is not the Internet Radio Fairness Act we've waited for. First, an important point that I feel gets lost in this ongoing, heated intellectual property conversation is what copyright means to content creators. I differentiate here between creative and interpretive artists, making no distinction as to the value of their contributions to music nor the dangers they face should IRFA become law. Outside of film, television, and video games, most writers – including playwrights, novelists, and poets – own the copyrights to our own material, with the catch that because we're not working for hire, we cannot unionize. Composers and the like thus hold a unique and tenuous position within the American Federation of Musicians. While we can be considered to “render musical services,” the AFM by-laws mention the word “composer” only once, and then in a restriction regarding recording contracts. Practically speaking, the AFM can only regulate contracts for which a composer, arranger, orchestrator, etc. is hired to craft a work. For everything else – I daresay the majority of songwriting in America – we're on our own. Thus left without collective bargaining power to support our work, which most other Americans almost take for granted as part of a job, our livelihood depends exclusively on our ability to effectively exploit our copyrights. I feel the need to restate this for emphasis: we have, in practice, no formal collective bargaining power relating to our rights to copyright exploitation. Some agencies, like ASCAP and BMI in the case of songwriters, step up to fill part of this role but do not have the legal clout of a true union. Sometime in the past, content creators decided to forgo that luxury in order to maintain creative control of their work, and I personally am glad for this decision today. Section 5 of the proposed legislation, however, explicitly prohibits any collective action on the part of copyright owners to “prohibit, interfere with, or inhibit” any attempts by streaming services to negotiate lower royalty rates, citing such interference as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Keeping in mind that most songwriters already have effectively no collective bargaining power, you must admit that Section 5 amounts to little more than rubbing salt in an old but quite open wound and formally stripping us of what marginal strength we're currently permitted. Bringing the Sherman Act against musicians is an interesting tactic, to say the least, in light of two recent legal cases. First, Pandora, one of the biggest backers of the IRFA, is suing ASCAP in order to lower royalty rates. Even if Pandora loses, the legal fees alone will only mean a cut in royalty payments across the board for the constituents of the non-profit organization, and that's a cut in desperately needed income in many cases. According to some math done recently by Digital Music News comparing the preliminary annual statements for SoundExchange and the SEC filings from Pandora, Pandora accounts for nearly 37% of all digital sound recording performance royalties collected in the United States. Keeping in mind that an additional 53% of SoundExchange's royalties are from SiriusXM, Pandora is making over three and a half times what the aggregate remainder of anything that could be construed as competition – even outside of the internet – is generating. Perhaps Pandora hopes, by backing the IRFA, to keep the business end of the Sherman Act pointed elsewhere. This is granted a particular ring of truth by the other relevant court case I'd like to bring up: the recent antitrust lawsuit brought against SiriusXM in New York for its monopoly on satellite radio. Although SiriusXM does not stand to be directly affected by the IRFA, its operations remain germane because its prominence has made it the primary basis for comparison by Pandora regarding the bill. In a spectacular show by the pot of calling the kettle black, SiriusXM leveled its own antitrust suit this past March against SoundExchange and the American Association of Independent Music – a non-profit performance rights agency and a trade association. SoundExchange and A2IM, according to SiriusXM, were guilty of unduly opposing efforts to directly license music at a lower royalty rate to play over their satellite radio service. Again, Pandora and SiriusXM together account for 90% of all royalties reported to SoundExchange in 2011; however, SiriusXM's hypocrisy is only the smallest element of this court case I must to bring to your attention. Current copyright legislation provides services like Pandora and SiriusXM with the luxury of compulsory licensing under Section 114. As long as they pay the agreed-upon rate, they have permission to play any released recording. In practice, that compulsory rate acts as a ceiling below which streaming services and artists may negotiate. Recently, both Pandora and SiriusXM have pushed for direct licensing to do just that. As I stated previously, though, an artist's livelihood depends on his ability to effectively exploit his copyrights, and implicitly bundled with the right to copy is the right NOT to copy. The compulsory license was established to promote dissemination of intellectual property while compensating copyright owners as equitably as possible. My income depends on that licensing rate, and in a capitalist free market, it's obviously in my best interest to seek the highest rate possible for my work. If that means declining to negotiate lower than the compulsory rate, that is my right. If media giants like SiriusXM and Pandora have the right to use their resources to seek direct licensing at lower rates, why should Section 5 of the IRFA seek to abridge the right of largely unorganized copyright holders to discuss and encourage optimal copyright exploitation amongst themselves? In support of the IRFA, Pandora often cites that SiriusXM pays less than 10% of its revenue in royalties, whereas Pandora pays over 50%. For one thing, SiriusXM and Pandora operate on completely different business models, using different subscription, advertising, and media delivery strategies. It would be like comparing the revenue of McDonald's and the Waldorf Astoria because they both serve food; a comparison cannot be made without further examination of the economic factors that precipitate the disparity in revenue. For another, the raw numbers tell a very different story. That measly 10% of SiriusXM's revenue contributes half again as much money in royalty payments to SoundExchange as that whopping 50% or more of Pandora's revenue. This only further illustrates how vastly different the two businesses are. Don't forget either that traditional AM and FM radio aren't obligated at all to SoundExchange; if Pandora is so worried about “fair” licensing practices, why isn't terrestrial radio at the very top of their agenda? Not only is Pandora's comparison argument invalid, but their sob story about royalty payments leeching profit from them is also their own doing. They were a part of the negotiations in 2005 to settle upon reasonable licensing rates. Their lack of foresight to negotiate more favorable rates or more flexibility to re-negotiate those (currently non-negotiable, as per the agreement reached) rates in the future is not an excuse to penalize artists and other content creators. That is the real battleground presented by the IRFA: not internet radio versus satellite radio, as Pandora and even SiriusXM would have the public believe, but all streaming content providers versus content creators. Just as the number of Americans making hefty six-figure salaries as corporate executives is respectable but representative only of a small percentage of the working class, most musicians are not Lady Gagas and Bonos with the resources and influence to lobby for their own rights, but rather middle-class Americans who turn to their art for a living. Other sections of the IRFA are just as worrisome. The proposed change in appointment of Copyright Royalty Judges is unnecessary. As important as copyright may be, I daresay the President has a number of more pressing issues to attend to than the appointment of these judges. Leaving this to the Librarian of Congress, whose chief duties include the protection of copyright, seems only natural and obvious. And although I favor the increased experience requirements, it seems counterproductive in Section 2 to eliminate the requirement that the Copyright Royalty Judges have experience in copyright and economic law. Other language in Sections 2 through 4, effectively intended to start the operations of the Copyright Royalty Board over from scratch, seems to suggest a discontentment with previous rulings and an attempt to secure more favorable decisions from new judges on the part of some interested parties. This impression is only solidified by language in Section 8 that ongoing cases before the Board will only recommence in the new court “with the consent of all participants,” which seems rather unlikely for at least one party involved in any given case. The pipe dream database of Section 7 would be not only unsuitably large for any kind of convenient or efficient use, but also under constant expansion. For evidence, I offer how nonexhaustive existing databases maintained by ASCAP, BMI, and other performance rights organizations are. Copyright law doesn't require official registration with the Library of Congress for a work to be copyrighted, and indeed the registration fee often dissuades creators from registering all works, resulting in potentially millions of songs beneath the Copyright Office's radar. Even the International Standard Recording Code established by ISO 3901, intended for just this purpose, cannot account for small or independent releases that never apply for ISRC codes, among other exceptions. The resources necessary to start yet another database, in the face of the inevitable shortcomings exhibited by existing databases, might be better spent elsewhere, like facilitating more comprehensive ISRC registration. The Internet Radio Fairness Act is not about fairness at all, but rather about the unconstitutional exploitation of artists' rights by monopolies with the power to do so. Through the din hailing the IRFA as a boon necessary for the continued creation and development of internet startups, the truth strains to be heard: artists big and small will be the real victims caught in the crossfire between too-powerful companies that have outgrown their modest origins. “Fairness” reform in music broadcasting will require a more in-depth analysis of both existing and proposed business models, to say nothing of a wider approach overall that addresses issues like the longstanding shortcomings of terrestrial radio performance reporting in America. According to an article in Billboard reacting to SiriusXM's lawsuit against SoundExchange and A2IM, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists have joined the AFM in standing against this legislation. These organizations that represent ordinary, working-class artists are entirely separate from other entities like the powerful Recording Industry Association of America, targeted by so many consumers as “The Man” responsible for many of the difficulties faced by consumers and emerging musicians alike. But in this instance, the RIAA has backed the Interim FIRST Act opposing the IRFA in solidarity with the everyday people in those artists' unions. I don't mean to imply that the Interim FIRST Act is the perfect alternative, but at the very least, it doesn't resort to penalizing musicians in a war between massive content providers. I strongly urge you to oppose the IRFA and continue to support the musical arts in America. The livelihood of millions across the country, from professionals with major-label deals to amateurs waiting to be discovered on YouTube, depends on your decisive action regarding this bill. If “fairness” is truly your aim, please stand alongside me and my fellow musicians against IRFA. Thank you for your time and consideration in this most crucial of cultural matters.
Harmful to artists, no thanks. Innovation, especially as meager as Internet radio, shou...Read more »
Gine L.
Harmful to artists, no thanks. Innovation, especially as meager as Internet radio, shouldn't come at the cost of artist's investment, risk and work. It's already happened that other companies are taking without making. This needs to stop.
Dear Senator Wyden This legislation apparently has some hidden features that take away ...Read more »
Richard M.
Dear Senator Wyden This legislation apparently has some hidden features that take away the rights of Union Musicians like me. I know you are a friend of labor and are will do your best to remove the union-busting portions of the bill
Please re-read the following: Section 5(a)(1)(B): `Nothing in this paragraph shall be c...Read more »
James T.
Please re-read the following: Section 5(a)(1)(B): `Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).‘. This bill is radically anti union. It would invoke The Sherman Act, to make it criminally punishable for the American Federation of Musicians and its Locals, of which I am a member, to speak out in opposition to any proposed direct licensing by commercial broadcasters. On the one hand of legislature is a giant who threatens kids with prison for file sharing, on the other hand is a dwarf who meekly gives musicians’ right away to commercial interests. Please oppose this bill in its current form.
I do not want any Federal laws or regulations of the internet. I think any Federal regu...Read more »
Bennett R.
I do not want any Federal laws or regulations of the internet. I think any Federal regulation of the internet is a recipe for limiting our rights. We need government off our back!
“Internet Radio Fairness Act” is anything but fair. There are many issues h...Read more »
Larry C.
“Internet Radio Fairness Act” is anything but fair. There are many issues hidden in this Act that are questionable. This is more about corporations and investors trying to make money and stifle the rights of musicians than it is about tech advances. I'm saddened to see Ron Wyden tricked into supporting this lie. Oregon has an amazing music scene, which I am an active part of, and this bill does nothing good for the business or musicians of our state. I hope this doesn't make it through... http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/mr-pandora-stays-silent-on-draconian-irfa-court-packing-and-union-busting/
Mr Wyden, I am a long time supporter of you and many of the issues that you stand for, ...Read more »
Chad L.
Mr Wyden, I am a long time supporter of you and many of the issues that you stand for, but, as a Oregon musician and the co-owner of a fledgling (i.e. not part of any music industry 'legacy') local record label I am left scratching my head over your support for the Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012. I have not had time to go through every detail of the bill, but it appears to me that Pandora and others services like it, want to pay artists even less for the use of their songs than they currently are. Some estimates put this at the paltry rate Spotify is currently paying artists ($.003 per song). How is that fair when you consider, not only the hard work that went into the making of said song, but also the amount of money (approx $10,000 per album) that goes into making of the music that we all love to hear? Interent radio is here to stay. As the promotions director for my label I am happy for that new medium and the access it allows music listeners. BUT, that is no excuse to allow these Internet Radio companies an even bigger break than they already receive. Pandora is not 'suffering' because of the amount they must pay for royalties, your favorite local musician is suffering because they, and other similar entities, are not paying the fair share of the use of their hard work and effort. I am hoping that you please take the time to look further into this bill's impact on musicians, if you will I am sure that you will see that what Pandora, etc. are asking for is quite unfair.
I am a little confused about the pricing structure of this bill. All I can find of HR 6...Read more »
Robert B.
I am a little confused about the pricing structure of this bill. All I can find of HR 6480, is the "how to" document for editing the current law, (that I cannot find a link to or name of). Without the original document that HR 6480 is to edit, how can I understand what is being proposed? Pandora's web page has this sentence, "The result is dramatically different royalty rates: satellite pays about 7.5% of revenues and cable pays about 15%, while Pandora pays more than 50% of revenue in royalties". By reading this sentence, I cannot tell if all three providers are paying the same amount per song or if it is based on a percentage of each companies gross income. The same page I read before (might have been changed by now) seemed to imply that Pandora wanted their rates changed to a lower percentage like the Satellite or Cable companies currently pay. Rather than having Satellite or Cable companies raise their payments to match Pandora's (or somewhere in the middle). I would think that you might get more $$$ for the artists and record labels from raising the rates for Satellite & Cable companies than from Pandora, just a guess. I listen to free internet radio all the time on my PC and on my phone, I love Pandora, and would hate for them to go out of business. I am just torn about this bill because I cannot decipher the true objective of it. Please support this bill and help keep our internet radio alive.
I think its a good idea to update the law on internet music broadcasting so that it ref...Read more »
Derek G.
I think its a good idea to update the law on internet music broadcasting so that it reflects the current usage and needs. I don't listen to music that much on the internet but by updating this it may be more accessible and I might use it more. I would also like to see more of the laws that make peoples life just difficult and are not really necessary start to go away. As part of my brother's Eagle Scout project he worked with the city to get permits for a building. Some of the requirements were unnecessary, didn't make sense and have caused more problems than they solved. I think a good way to solve this is to have more laws that are simple and use common sense and less of the ones that make people jump through hoops. Thanks for taking the time to read this and taking it into consideration
I support the Internet Radio Fairness Act (S.3609, HB.6480). As an avid music listener,...Read more »
Richard C.
I support the Internet Radio Fairness Act (S.3609, HB.6480). As an avid music listener, collector, concertgoer, and internet user, this sounds like a good opportunity to promote fairness while fostering an industry full of innnovations with the benefit of making music more accessible. Who could not want that?
Thank you, Senator Wyden, for the many positive things that you are doing for our state...Read more »
Larry K.
Thank you, Senator Wyden, for the many positive things that you are doing for our state and country. The internet radio Fairness Act. The world is changing rapidly and the corporations are the first to grab the advantage. Their actions more than often set up an unfair situation for competitors and end-users, the public.
I feel that internet radio should be for the public we already have to pay for the inte...Read more »
Matthew C.
I feel that internet radio should be for the public we already have to pay for the internet so if pandora wants to be a free site to listen to music there should be no problem however I do not think that one company should be yhe only one in the publics hands.what is the problem with the internet radio now?i will stop listening to pandora if it is going to charge to use it.thank you for your free and public music radio pandora
Dear Senator Wyden. If a Internet Radio Station is not a Talk Station and therefore pla...Read more »
Tina W.
Dear Senator Wyden. If a Internet Radio Station is not a Talk Station and therefore plays Music it needs to pay the regulatory rates to Artists, and Sound Recording Rights Owners. To record a professional Music Production costs a lot of money. Why should the Internet Stations get away with not paying the Creators of this Music which they can make money on by selling Ads. There are other promotional outlets for Artists on the Internet that they already use without getting paid. The Terrestrial Stations have to pay to play music (at least to Songwriter and Publisher), why should the Online Stations get away with not paying by calling it promotion for the Artist. It's already unfair enough that the Artist unless he/she is also a Songwriter/Publisher doesn't receive a cut from the payout of Terrestrial Stations. The Bottom line is Artist, Songwriters, Publishers, and Labels all deserve their fair share from all Radio Stations that play their Music, whether Internet or Terrestrial, since playing Music is what these Stations live from by selling Ads. Why should they be able to play music for free and make money on it on top of it. Nobody should be fattening frogs for lizards.
I firmly support internet freedom, net neutrality, and expanded municipal and rural acc...Read more »
Jeffery V.
I firmly support internet freedom, net neutrality, and expanded municipal and rural access, in all its forms. With the ongoing assaults on our constitutional freedoms, the concentration of media outlets in the hands of a few corporate giants, the internet is the only media available to provide the full breathe of political views.
I have found many Internet radios who give free music to their users. We barely think a...Read more »
DC H.
I have found many Internet radios who give free music to their users. We barely think about how EXPENSIVE that is for them, especially when their income is just advertisements. But how much do other pre-Internet radios pay to give their music to listeners who don't pay themselves? Don't know. But reducing to the low price of them might be just low unless the music industry is still running heavily on that. The big thing being missed is that fact that all these radios don't let anyone pick-and-choose the songs; they promote them by playing them, and if you liked it and want it whenever, especially without streaming while on the go, then you just buy it. Not hard. And it gives the makers THAT much more money.
We should not discriminate against Pandora or any internet raido.. treat them all equal...Read more »
Amanda G.
We should not discriminate against Pandora or any internet raido.. treat them all equally.. charge the same %'s. No one should be taxed above 50% thats just highway robbery!
My family, friends, coworkers, and I receive almost all of our music via online streami...Read more »
Brandon C.
My family, friends, coworkers, and I receive almost all of our music via online streaming, so this is extremely important to us. It's time to bring Internet radio royalty rules into the 21st century. Great work, this is sorely needed.
Dear Senator Wyden, As registered Oregonian voter and recent college grad, I fully supp...Read more »
Jacob D.
Dear Senator Wyden, As registered Oregonian voter and recent college grad, I fully support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. The prevalence of internet coverage across the nation has allowed listeners access to a wider variety of both paradigm-changing genres and upcoming artists from every corner of the U.S.A. I believe we should encourage the growth of this industry, focusing primarily on bridging the gap between the artists and their audience. In light of this, I sincerely hope that you will continue to champion this bill in the senate and, if internet radio providers are to be taxed so heavily, advocate for the reallocation of dues to the artists whom we so appreciate instead of the bigwigs at the record labels. Thank you for your service as a Pioneer to the forward-thinking people of the great state of Oregon.
I am writing to express my support for the Internet Radio Fairness Act - it seems unfai...Read more »
Daniel G.
I am writing to express my support for the Internet Radio Fairness Act - it seems unfair that startup tech companies such as Pandora should have to pay so much more for royalties while traditional radio stations enjoy far lower rates for the same (if not inferior) product. This is an artificial barrier to entry that hurts competition and consumers. I run a small business that employs people in OR and that depends on the growth of tech startups, particularly those who heavily use cloud computing and "big data." While this issue may only seem tangentially related, I think it is important for Ron to take a stand to support the tech industry that his State is increasingly dependent on.
While I have no suggestions for alternatives, the playing field has to be levelled to a...Read more »
Daniel M.
While I have no suggestions for alternatives, the playing field has to be levelled to allow each venue to grow while supporting the artists that make it happen.
Senator Wyden, I support in concept S. 3609 -- Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012. I a...Read more »
Phillip D.
Senator Wyden, I support in concept S. 3609 -- Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012. I am a subscriber to Pandora Radio and Spotify. In the past, I was a paid subscriber to Rhapsody. I believe Internet radio services are a valuable service to both musicians and music lovers. I have friends and family members who are professional musicians and I am strongly in favor of a consistent and fair royalty system for composers and performers. As a consumer of commercial radio of all types, I believe I have an obligation to pay artists and composers for receiving transmission of their works. In my opinion, a royalty for transmission of music should be a function of two factors 1) the number of times a piece of music is transmitted, in part or in full, regardless of the technology used for transmission; and 2) the number of recipients of each transmission. Unlike traditional AM or FM broadcast technologies, where the size of the audience can only be estimated, cable, satellite and Internet radio services can measure both of these factors with precision. They know which of their subscribers are listening to each channel at all times. Certainly, then, these services should be paying the same amount per transmission per subscriber. Similarly, it seems to me that the copies of songs retained by cable, satellite, and Internet radio services for repeated transmission should cost more to those services than an individual user would pay to download those songs for personal use, in the same way that libraries pay different price for new books than individuals pay for retail copies. This recognizes that a) the copies purchased by the services will be replayed (i.e. transmitted) many more times than a copy owned by an individual and b) the services will recover the cost of their copy through the sales of subscriptions and advertising for their services. To the extent that S. 3609 recognizes and fairly addresses these circumstances, I support it
Senator Wyden, Thank you for your tiring efforts on the "Internet Radio Fairness Act". ...Read more »
Mike and Traci O.
Senator Wyden, Thank you for your tiring efforts on the "Internet Radio Fairness Act". We are avid Pandora listeners and thank Pandora for their efforts in their "Music Genome" project. Pandora has introduced my wife an I to hundreds of new artists that we normally would not have access to. I fully support the bill and have contacted my legislative representatives here in Oklahoma to do the same. Thanks you again for your efforts.
As a lifelong (I'm 64) supporter of new music, new artists, and new styles in the class...Read more »
William B.
As a lifelong (I'm 64) supporter of new music, new artists, and new styles in the classical and the vernacular realms, I find Internet Radio to be an incredibly powerful vehicle for exposing new music to new audiences, and breaking down the artificial tyranny of corporate radio playlists. A phenomenon very much to be encouraged. No new technology can succeed, however, if its purveyors are beggared by obsolete rules governing payments, including royalty payments. As a retired State official now embarked on a new career as a small business person (NOT in the music business), I have become acutely aware just how important intelligent regulation and enlightened rule-making are to the success of my businesses, or anyone's businesses. Including Internet radio, which is, after all, a decidedly commercial proposition. It seems clear the current royalty framework seriously inhibits the growth of Internet radio, and that this proposed legislation would restore a sense of fairness and balance that would allow this new platform to reach its maximum market potential, thus benefiting copyright holders as well as listeners. I look forward to seeing it enacted.
I love it. Tear down the barriers.
...Read more »
Robert D.
I love it. Tear down the barriers.
I support the Internet Radio Fairness Act, bill number 3609
...Read more »
Glenn C.
I support the Internet Radio Fairness Act, bill number 3609
I support the Internet Radio Fairness Act, bill number 3609. Please lend your help and ...Read more »
Casey F.
I support the Internet Radio Fairness Act, bill number 3609. Please lend your help and support too.
I listen to both satellite music stations (in my car and on my TV) and internet radio s...Read more »
Victory W.
I listen to both satellite music stations (in my car and on my TV) and internet radio stations (on computer at home and work). Both provide the same type of service, but the costs paid by the two groups appears vastly different. I support the equalization of these groups, and support a bill that would lay out clearer and fairer rules on how rates should be decided. I realize that you are one of the sponsors of the bill, so this should go without saying, but I would strongly urge you to support this bill.
Great job! I sent this to Marco Rubio: Please support this act. There is no legitimate ...Read more »
Clayton B.
Great job! I sent this to Marco Rubio: Please support this act. There is no legitimate reason for businesses that essentially do the same thing to pay different royalty rates. Everyone knows that the only reason for the current law is because the companies that paid the lobbyists the most money got special treatment. Maybe that's just "the game", but it shouldn't be, and it makes regular Americans disgusted with the government. My only complaint is that this bill doesn't go far enough. There's no reason to continue the favoritism of broadcast radio, either. They make big money playing music. Why don't they have to pay the people who own those recordings? Obviously, the only answer is the NAB. The old-school rationale about radio's "promotional benefits" applies equally to internet radio, so why does broadcast radio get to ride for free? End favoritism! Put everyone on a level playing field and let the market determine who should survive. If they have to sell more ads or raise ad rates to pay the royalties, so be it. How can they complain if their competitors play by the same rules? BTW kudos to the drafter of this bill. They obviously understand technology a lot better than those that wrote the law originally. The idea that any internet radio provider of any consequence could function using a single "ephemeral" copy of a song file is absurd. Having a law that everyone in an industry must necessarily break to function is ridiculous. That, plus the threat that "buffer" copies might violate the law, leaves the whole industry operating under a cloud of uncertainty. This bill uses common sense. If a "copy" of a song doesn't end up in the control of the end user (to play whenever they want, put on their iPod, etc.), it doesn't take sales away from the copyright owner, so it shouldn't matter.
Though I am not a member of your voting district, I wanted to take a minute to applaud ...Read more »
Jon Eric R.
Though I am not a member of your voting district, I wanted to take a minute to applaud you for your stand on "Radio Fairness." As a music lover, a business major, and a part time employee at a start up advertising company I understand the need to make Internet Radio a more commercially viable option and encourage economic growth and competition in that industry. Keep fighting the good fight!
LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD!!!!! PANDORA PAYS MORE FOR SONGS?? THEN CABLE AND SATELLI...Read more »
Charles P.
LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD!!!!! PANDORA PAYS MORE FOR SONGS?? THEN CABLE AND SATELLITE??? WHY?????? I THINK PANDORA IS THE BEST THING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO MUSIC!!!! I USE PANDORA AT HOME AND IN THE CAR!!!!!! ITS THE ONLY MEDIA THAT YOU CAN SET TO YOUR LIKES!!! BASED ON YOUR AGE!!!!!!!!! 50,S, 60,S MUSIC,I AM 62 AND WOULD MISS WHAT I GREW UP WITH!!!!!!!!!! MAKE ALL MEDIA PAY THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!! THE BEST WE EVER HAD!!!!!! DON,T GET RID OF A GOOD THING!!!!!!!! I AM SURE THE PARTIES CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE AND KEEP THIS SERVICE!!!!! LETS NOT GET GREEDY !!!!!!!!!!! THANK-YOU
Internet radio, Pandora in particular, plays on my computer throughout my entire work d...Read more »
Jessica M.
Internet radio, Pandora in particular, plays on my computer throughout my entire work day on most days. It is a source of peaceful ambiance that creates a backdrop for my productivity. My clients often comment on how they come in all stressed up and my office helps them center and feel at ease. I credit Pandora music selections. I am a paid member of Pandora because I want to support what they offer. I'm glad you are sponsoring a bill that will increase the viability of Internet radio businesses like Pandora. I tried to read the bill to be clear what it was proposing, but for some reason it only showed changes not just the bill. But I received an email from Tim Westergren, the founder of Pandora. He says the bill will create a fair marketplace for businesses like Pandora. That's why I'm writing to you. Please keep at it until we get legislation that is needed to preserve the amazing services of Internet radio. I love it. It makes all the difference during my work day
I fully support the idea of lowering the large royalties on internet radio. I have disc...Read more »
Alton C.
I fully support the idea of lowering the large royalties on internet radio. I have discovered most of my favorite music through Pandora, Grooveshark, and similar companies, and I want them to thrive and succeed, as well as enable more artists and musicians to get plays for audiences that will truly listen to them. Internet radio offers a listening experience that I can't find anywhere else, and it would be a huge disappointment to see such an awesome new market get trampled by other industries and fees-- so leveling the playing field is an important step towards fostering this new industry. I hope that more bills like this one, that find problems and work towards solving them in a bipartisan way, see the light of day and are supported in congress.
This act is good idea that I think should be considered by many people before the verdi...Read more »
Jackson C.
This act is good idea that I think should be considered by many people before the verdict is decided. This act has may good ideas and some minor ones that could impact the artists who produce the music. Sure it'll be easier for internet radio like Pandora and Spotify to play more music because of the proposed fair royalty cost, but what will happen to public radio when more and more cars nowadays are able to use Pandora on the go. Public radio could potentially become extinct. When you think about it, people like to listen to music that they like, so they tune into their favorite radio station whether it is old rock and roll or classic jazz, but when given the option to do that, or specifically pick a song or artist they like and listen to that type of music with minimal advertising compared to commercials on public radio every two or three songs. This is a small problem that could flower into a new era of ways to listen to music but it will cost a sacrifice. Along the topic of the artists, Pandora and Spotify are meant to be used to discover new artists and new songs that not very many people have heard before, where as public radio is just a general station with popular songs and artists for that genre of music. These internet radio station are a great way to introduce new artists while still listening to the old ones, which originally inspired you to find more of genre or songs similar to it. The artists may recieve a smaller royalty from the internet radios because of the act but whats it matter to them if they are already rich and famous, it would be more beneficial for younger up coming singers to be discovered, not just pay the popular ones over and over again. I hope you continue to push for it while knowing what exactly it will do, as I learned in school, "There is no such thing as a 'Free Lunch", everything, and I mean everything, comes with a cost."
Please support: "The Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012" I love Pandora radio!!!! When...Read more »
Jada N.
Please support: "The Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012" I love Pandora radio!!!! When you not do anything you will love to listening to music. Please support
I support access and equity among all media outlets. I constantly look to Internet radi...Read more »
Krystal S.
I support access and equity among all media outlets. I constantly look to Internet radio for musical inspiration. Internet radio allows grassroots organizations to participate in the media landscape and ensures a voice for all. I have friends who are artists and DJs, and Internet radio allows them to spread their talents outside of the monopoly held by industry conglomerates. I absolutely support this piece of legislation and I thank you for introducing this bill. Please let me know how I can support your efforts.
I am thrilled that internet radio royalty distribution is being assessed and I hope wit...Read more »
Tiff R.
I am thrilled that internet radio royalty distribution is being assessed and I hope with all my heart that a proper solution is worked out. I must say though - Spotify is NOT NOT NOT a great way to make sure artists are paid. It is yet another form of musicians being devalued and paid less then pennies for their work. Seriously - the amount of money an artist gets paid from this service is beyond terrible. It is not the answer. I don't know the answer... But I do know that advertising revenue in conjunction with entertainment whether its TV or Movies or Radio - seems to be the companion that is always side by side with a successful format. Spotify could be great - but they need to find a way (advertisements etc) to actually pay artists fairly for their music. This is the point.... How to set up a successful model on the internet that also assists in musicians being paid fairly. I am looking forward to a brilliant business model. It was figured out with radio and then with TV. I am sure it will get figured out in regards to the internet by some brilliant mind. And of course I will be thrilled to see these efforts help to boost our economy and it will be inspiring and moving to see our government take some major steps to support artists in our country.
I think a comprehensive approach to all broadcast systems needs to put in place. On the...Read more »
Loren L.
I think a comprehensive approach to all broadcast systems needs to put in place. On the business side, overhead expenses need to be considered. Satellite vs Internet vs Analog. A fair rate must be derived for each of the services. Free enterprise, via the sales of advertising dollars, have always been profit margin for the broadcasters. And, in my opinion, should remain the profit for the the broadcasters. The downfall for the artists that create the product that the broadcasters sell . . . . The rules of supply and demand no longer apply to the artists. In the digital media once it's out there . . It's out there. In decades past if demand was high, only so many vinyl records could be pressed, hence the price increased to the consumer. On todays playing field, weather you get 3 plays or 3 million, you get the same base percentage of royalty. To truly make things fair for the artist the percentage should be based on # of plays per quarter. If the broadcasters are playing the most popular artists and bringing in the top advertising dollars because of that, then the artist deserves their fair share. It's obvious that the major label record companies have had a similar system in place. Now that they have lost control of the market it will take law to keep the players honest. I just ask that you follow closely the guidelines laid out in the Constitution of The United States. We have had too many laws infringing on our rights in the past. And it is my will that we follow Gods will in all our transactions. God bless you Mr. Wyden and God bless the USA Thanks
I thank you for introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act and support it with you.&nb...Read more »
Kelly B.
I thank you for introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act and support it with you.
Please accept my agreement with your bi-partisan bill. Yet again, our legislation has n...Read more »
Bill H.
Please accept my agreement with your bi-partisan bill. Yet again, our legislation has not kept up with changing times. Pandora Radio, as an example, should not be treated separately from other internet or digital stations
I'm writing to ask that you support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. As a musician and ...Read more »
Tim P.
I'm writing to ask that you support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. As a musician and consumer of all types of music, via all types of media, I understand that the act will level the playing field and not give one vendor preferential treatment regarding royalties and payment for their product.
I'm writing to ask that you support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. As a musician and ...Read more »
Tim P.
I'm writing to ask that you support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. As a musician and consumer of all types of music, via all types of media, I understand that the act will level the playing field and not give one vendor preferential treatment regarding royalties and payment for their product.
i am a supporter of the inauguration of the internet radio fairness act legislation. A ...Read more »
Rachael D.
i am a supporter of the inauguration of the internet radio fairness act legislation. A congregation choice voiced via documentation can help towards the emancipation of un needy greedy manifestations. Support the spread of art, Pandora is a light in which artists can get out of the dark and get a fair start. The Pandora internet radio station helps channel creation throughout our nation. Think linked before art becomes extinct.
I think the Internet Radio Fairness Act is great. I think it's just common sense that a...Read more »
Daniel L.
I think the Internet Radio Fairness Act is great. I think it's just common sense that all radio mediums should pay about the same amount of revenues. It isn't right that internet radio should have to pay so much more that other mediums. I also think this act is great because if it passes, it will encourage future innovations that may not have been developed yet because of the unfair rules/regulations imposed on them.
The Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012 - This is very thoughtful and needed legislatio...Read more »
Dianna G.
The Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012 - This is very thoughtful and needed legislation to level the playing field. Thank you Senator Wyden - again you do so much for so many. Thanks for being pragmatic and realistic.
Please support the internet radio fairness act Bill # 3609. Please I love Pandora radio...Read more »
Barbara M.
Please support the internet radio fairness act Bill # 3609. Please I love Pandora radio
Ron - Clear Idea: Please ask internet providers like Pandora to offer a click button to...Read more »
Donald B.
Ron - Clear Idea: Please ask internet providers like Pandora to offer a click button to DONATE funds to the artist and their producers. I KNOW millions of listeners who appreciate a unique piece of music would use their credit card to fund the artists we like - even if it's only a single dollar. Call it "Free Music Contributions" or something like that... it will be good for the industry, and great for the musicians. We appreciate their music. We'll show it, if given a chance
I am writing to you today in support of the Internet Radio Fairness Act (HR 6480 and S ...Read more »
Marcela H.
I am writing to you today in support of the Internet Radio Fairness Act (HR 6480 and S 3609). I believe Internet radio should be treated fairly, and that Congress should not be picking winners by favoring certain forms of radio. I rely on Internet radio to discover new bands, and Internet radio plays tons of indie music. I want to support these musicians in a way that is fair for everyone. Internet radio is the future and should have a shot at competing. We need policies in place to help it grow. Please vote in support of the Internet Radio Fairness Act
Spotify seems like a great means of guaranteeing compensation to artists / labels for e...Read more »
Jarod L.
Spotify seems like a great means of guaranteeing compensation to artists / labels for every time one of their tracks is played, not to mention it is the easiest most convenient way to access all one's favorite music as well as constantly be exposed to stellar new musicians. Please support and protect such platforms!!
It all comes down to money...and that's such a shame!! No one does these things for the...Read more »
Lisa N.
It all comes down to money...and that's such a shame!! No one does these things for the pure pleasure it brings the masses and of course "There is no such thing as a free lunch." So, why not give artists a share in the business? This way it is to their best interests that Internet free radio works. I have no problem with advertisers on the free radio but asking for a donation (tax free) every now and then from loyal, grateful listeners might not be too bad either. It would certainly be worth it and I would donate what I could. Why wouldn't you??
Thank you for introducing the Internet Fairness Act of 2012. I think this ia great piec...Read more »
Eric G.
Thank you for introducing the Internet Fairness Act of 2012. I think this ia great piece of legislation as online music is changing the music entertainment industry in real time and our government should consider and recognize this paradigm shift. Internet radio is a wonderful and cost effective way to introduce and explore music. These services need to be a financial viable business to the private companies that are running them but at the core we need to acknowledge and support the artists whose work we are all enjoying. I am happy you are our senator and that you are putting this bill before congress. I think you are doing a good job representing the people of Oregon and thank you for your dedication and service to our country and state
I am pleased to hear that you are presenting this bill in congress! I absolutely agree ...Read more »
Chris S.
I am pleased to hear that you are presenting this bill in congress! I absolutely agree with this act and think this should be passes unanimously. I have discovered more up and coming artists through internet radio sites like Pandora and iheartradio than I ever would have through XM or Sirius. Having Pandora has been the main catalyst to me purchasing these new artist's music as well. I am more apt to purchase their works if I have a chance to listen to a few songs off their album before purchasing. Thank you again for championing this cause. I am even more proud to be an Oregonian knowing our senator is involved in yet another worthy cause.
I'm in support of the Internet fairness act. Let us listen to music
...Read more »
Rita Ann E.
I'm in support of the Internet fairness act. Let us listen to music
I'm in support of this Bill. Everything incorporates the internet, so it only makes sen...Read more »
Nancy K.
I'm in support of this Bill. Everything incorporates the internet, so it only makes sense that prices be fair as well.
Equal footing serves all consumers. New technology should not be burdened to protect es...Read more »
Lee T.
Equal footing serves all consumers. New technology should not be burdened to protect established companies / technologies. Internet radio, sat. radio, cable radio, should all pay the same fees and royalties. Each technology requires infrastructure costs, marketing and so forth. Let the best company /technology win and all consumers will win too.
I think that internet radio should not have to pay any different than any other radio f...Read more »
Kris F.
I think that internet radio should not have to pay any different than any other radio format.
Senator Wyden, I greatly appreciate you introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act int...Read more »
John F.
Senator Wyden, I greatly appreciate you introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act into Congress for passage as a new law. I fully support your effort and the passage of this bill.
I am the owner/operator of an upstart Internet radio business and your legislation is d...Read more »
Patrick D.
I am the owner/operator of an upstart Internet radio business and your legislation is desperately needed. Prior to starting my own business in February, I worked for 10 years as a terrestrial radio broadcaster. I saw what my station was paying to the publishers yearly for their performance licenses - roughly $10,000 per year. That license came WITHOUT restriction and allowed for both terrestrial and internet broadcasting. Making the switch to an Internet-only provider has shown me the differences. To purchase licensing via ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and SoundExchange - as an Internet only provider - I'd be on the hook for roughly $150,000 a year. Luckily I've found a company that's negotiated bulk arrangements with the publishers and I pay a monthly fee based upon listenership and revenue. I can count on a minimum of 25% of my gross to go right back out the door to the music publishers. 42 percent of Americans listen to "Internet" radio regularly. More people are getting their music from us, and we're not going anywhere. Please make the playing field fair.
I am an avid listener of internet radio and was one of the first to get sirrius radio w...Read more »
Angie J.
I am an avid listener of internet radio and was one of the first to get sirrius radio when it came out. I actually paid for four subscrptions. I do understand that nothing is free and in this current economy some things just are not fair. But I do feel that the Internet Radio Fairness Act although not perfect is a good start to a level playing field for sites like Pandora which I listen to daily. It is of course important to support and protect the interest of the artists but with the rising costs of everything the only way some of us will ever hear these artists are through sites such as Pandora. You have my support and I will try to educate others on this subject...Thanks
First of all I would like to thank Sen. Wyden for his support of the Internet Radio Fai...Read more »
Stan G.
First of all I would like to thank Sen. Wyden for his support of the Internet Radio Fairness Act. Outdated and unfair regulations stifle the creative growth of companies and artists alike and I believe this bill will help greatly in the effort to introduce new and innovative music artists to the world at large. Internet radio is a huge medium for artists to become recognized and with out it many (probably 1000s) would not even get the chance to have their music heard. Internet radio is a staple of the future and taxing and regulating it to death is two steps back.
I know I am not one of your constituent's, but I would like to thank you for addressing...Read more »
David M.
I know I am not one of your constituent's, but I would like to thank you for addressing an issue that has prevented our company from moving forward. We are a minority owned micro-startup. Our website is LatinoGigs.com. Our business plan includes an Internet radio station for our site. Although we have moved forward with a site design that includes Internet radio, we have not been able to release it because of the complicated and very expensive royalty fee structure. Our overall goal in starting this company was to begin a venture that would give jobs to those that need them. Laws, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which prevent companies from being viable and profitable firms must be changed. Your efforts are a positive step in the right direction. Thank you again, and if there is anything I or our company can do to help, please let us know.
Internet radio and terrestrial radio should play by the same rules. The purpose of terr...Read more »
Alan S.
Internet radio and terrestrial radio should play by the same rules. The purpose of terrestrial radio had historically been to make a profit by selling advertising and offering free music listening to the audience. The audience then bought music which provided revenues to the labels supplying the music being played on the radio. Subscriptions do not exist on terrestrial radio; they exist on internet radio to provide revenues to supplement advertising revenues to enable payment of the high statutory rates to Soundexchange. Let the market seek its own level. Eliminate Soundexchange and government from the equation. One of two things will happen: 1. Internet radio music will be free for listeners and free to use by the websites and these websites will simply promote sales of music played like terrestrial radio; or 2. Performance of music on internet radio will be tied exclusively to a percentage of subscription and advertising revenue set by the market WITHOUT any fixed amount per performance per listener needed to be paid...the latter is what is destroying the music industry. Let the market work and stop statutory regulation in an area that government should not interfere.
Internet Radio Fairness Act: I am a Pandora web based radio solution and have been enco...Read more »
Richard H.
Internet Radio Fairness Act: I am a Pandora web based radio solution and have been encouraged to contact you. (here is where this is different than what you might expect). Pandora indicates there is a different pricing structure for royalty payments for Satellite Radio than web radio. I say level the playing field, eliminate special deals for satellite delivery, step back, and allow the free market to determine winners and losers in the radio delivery industry. If there are subsidies or pricing inequity, please check your free market gut and assure me it is for a valid national reason and not a un-necessary stipend offered to 1 company over another for an outdated reason.
I'm asking that you support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. This bipartisan bill will ...Read more »
David E.
I'm asking that you support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. This bipartisan bill will correct the incredible inequity in how different digital radio formats are treated under the law when it comes to setting royalties. The difference is quite extraordinary. In 2011, Pandora paid over 50% of our revenues in performance royalties, while SiriusXM paid less than 10%.
Thank you for introducing the Internet Fairness Act of 2012. You have my support on thi...Read more »
Gary M.
Thank you for introducing the Internet Fairness Act of 2012. You have my support on this act. Internet radio is a great, interactive source of entertainment which needs to remain competetive with other forms of music while ensuring a revenue stream to the artists. BTW - I think you are doing a solid job of representing the people of Oregon and hope you can gain the support of colleagues to help President Obama move this country forward.
This bill makes perfect sense to me. It is only fair that all of the Internet sources p...Read more »
Katherine S.
This bill makes perfect sense to me. It is only fair that all of the Internet sources pay the same rates, regardless of how much income they generate from advertising. The more music played means more money generated for the artist. I am very much in favor of this law because it put the income in the hands of the artists as opposed to companies generating income based on advertising to consumers who only want to hear the music. I am much in favor of supporting the artists as opposed to the individual Internet music providers. Regards
Everything nowadays is incorporating the internet, there is no need to have radio inter...Read more »
Ryan S.
Everything nowadays is incorporating the internet, there is no need to have radio internet restrained in shackles. Thank you Senator Wyden for introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act!!
Ron, I tremendously enjoy Pandora radio. I won't pretend to know any of the legal or po...Read more »
Brian R.
Ron, I tremendously enjoy Pandora radio. I won't pretend to know any of the legal or policy wonk issues with this act, but if Pandora's business model is in jeopardy due to government making rules inequitable compared to any other broadcast format (sattelite, cable, or even terrestrial), that should end. While it is important to me to protect artists and have them receive fair royalties, I find the cost of satellite radio to be prohibitive, and will soon cut cable due to high cost. My only remaining way to enjoy a variety of music, including exposure to new artists that I would not otherwise know, is through internet radio. Thanks for you leadership on this issue.
Senator Wyden, Thank you for introducing this legislation. I strongly support your effo...Read more »
Chris P.
Senator Wyden, Thank you for introducing this legislation. I strongly support your effort to update our current anachronistic laws governing online broadcasting royalty rates.
I Feel that Pandora having to pay more than 50% needs to be looked at and changed I wan...Read more »
Kim A.
I Feel that Pandora having to pay more than 50% needs to be looked at and changed I want to see the artists get the credit that they deserve .The listeners out here are the ones that deserve to here there art with out any problems . I enjoy Pandora very much it has helped me in more ways then any one will ever know! as I am the (company) is touching many other people in the same way. Pandora is the best site that allows me find the music I love need and appreciate to the fullest! Keep going on this I believe it is the right thing to do. Thank You
Out here in rural Oregon, we have a very limited choice of terrestrial radio. Internet ...Read more »
Tom H.
Out here in rural Oregon, we have a very limited choice of terrestrial radio. Internet radio gives us that choice. For instance, I listen to Radio Paradise almost exclusively when at home. Or stream PBS since the signal is poor at home. I support The Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012 100%
Senator Wyden, Thank you for introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act. I strongly su...Read more »
Richard V.
Senator Wyden, Thank you for introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act. I strongly support this. Thanks again,
Please stop discrimination against internet radio. I support the Internet Radio Fairnes...Read more »
Charlie I.
Please stop discrimination against internet radio. I support the Internet Radio Fairness Act.
Dear Senator Wyden, My family and I are avid Pandora listeners. We live in a rural, mou...Read more »
Mary A.
Dear Senator Wyden, My family and I are avid Pandora listeners. We live in a rural, mountainous area where the local station fades out at sunset, which is about 5:00 p.m. in the winter, when radio is a nice diversion. With Pandora we get to listen to the music that each family member enjoys, rather than just the one station available locally. Thank you for sponsoring this bill. We all want musicians to earn profits from their skills, so I believe that unchaining the internet music sources will ultimately produce more income than the traditional methods that are being left behind with new technology. Thank you,
I know there are so many important issues to worry about these days, but I would like t...Read more »
Matt G.
I know there are so many important issues to worry about these days, but I would like to let you know that I would appreciate your support of the Internet Radio Fairness Act. I know there is a lot of money out there trying to keep the status quot with respect to how I consume information, but it is important to me that I be free to listen, watch, and read in a way that I choose. The freedom of the internet is very important to me and everyone I know in my age group. Hopefully you will stand with us on this issue. Thanks
I am in favor of parity across the board, which means bring terrestrial radio stations ...Read more »
Carsteen D.
I am in favor of parity across the board, which means bring terrestrial radio stations up to the same standards as satellite and internet radio. Today internet radio seems to be unfairly held to pay more in royalties, so I see the Internet Radio Fairness Act as a good first step, and I support it for that reason, however there must be continuing effort made to bring terrestrial radio up to the same level in order to ensure that artists are fairly compensated no matter what the medium is that their music is played through. Overall this will help continue to drive innovation in all forms.
Let the market place work and keep the government out. If certain programming works and...Read more »
David R.
Let the market place work and keep the government out. If certain programming works and makes money, let them make it and pay taxes. If certain programming does not work and they don't make money let them change or go out of bussiness. Stay out of it.....
Dear Senator, As a United States citizen who believes in fair and equal opportunity for...Read more »
Kevin M.
Dear Senator, As a United States citizen who believes in fair and equal opportunity for all. I support the Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012. However, as a man who is also concerned for the Artist who are paid their due for their works. I also believe it is fair that we have the foresight to realize that the Radio FM/AM does not have to pay any money to broadcast music. Therefore, I also support the Interim FIRST act of 2012, believing that, even though an unfair tax is being imposed upon Radio, hindering public spread of music easily, it allows the artist fair compensation for the loss they receive with the lowering of payments from the Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012. If it were possible for the Internet Radio Fairness Act of 2012 to amend such changes that reflect the Radio AM/FM business to also pay royalties to the Artist, then I would vote only for one bill.
Internet Radios is great. Many would agree but those who oppose it usually have some ti...Read more »
Marquis M.
Internet Radios is great. Many would agree but those who oppose it usually have some tie to the recording industry. Many years ago when Sean Parker founded Napstar, he did it with wrong motives and his peer-to-peer file sharing Internet service became extinct when he went to jail. But the concept didn't go away. The model has been reformed into something very successful called iTunes. The point here is we should not limit innovation we should encourage it. The internet radio fairness act would allow for the creation of new and innovative companies that would only increase the revenue stream of the recording industry. Let's put everyone on the level playing field by 1. increasing what radio and other traditional forms pay and 2. lesson the burden of new more innovative techniques like internet radio. The average should be around 18% - 28%. I think that is the fairest way to ensure that everyone is on a level playing field. Many will not agree but again lets not look at this from who's side we stand on but on which line would be the best to walk for both sides. Let's allow innovation to take its course.
Senator Wyden, I totally support the "Internet Radio Fairness Act" and support your eff...Read more »
Peter H.
Senator Wyden, I totally support the "Internet Radio Fairness Act" and support your efforts. Yes, A level playing field is necessary in this competitive area. Thank you for sponsoring this legislation.
It's not fair that internet radio websites, like Pandora, have to pay more fees or taxe...Read more »
Robert G.
It's not fair that internet radio websites, like Pandora, have to pay more fees or taxes than Sirius XM. Just because one company plays via radio and another through the internet shouldn't mean that one company should pay more just to provide the same services.
I believe that radio on the internet should be no more expensive than that available ov...Read more »
Daniel G.
I believe that radio on the internet should be no more expensive than that available over the air waves or elsewhere. As a teacher I use sites like Pandora on a regular, if not daily, basis. It should not cost the companies more to make that type of media available online than elsewhere.
I am fine with more commercial time if that will help support free internet radio, and ...Read more »
Shay R.
I am fine with more commercial time if that will help support free internet radio, and I think others would be as well. It seems like advertising is one of the key factors to making internet radio more commercially viable. Why can't the model mimic conventional radio with the exception that I pick my genera? "virtual DJ" I like being able to purchase the music straight from the internet radio. I also enjoy write ups on the artist and music type at the same time as the song is referenced and is being played. This is a major benefit to internet radio over conventional radio. A music video internet radio may be a good idea, if that does not already exist. Youtube channels taken to an internet radio level, if you follow me. I know they run ads on top of their videos. Can they access artist concert/event calendars? Through RSS, users could click easily to see close concert times dates and book tickets, or receive notifications through the internet radio app. just some thoughts.
While I like the proposal, I don't agree with having the President nominate the judges,...Read more »
Russell G.
While I like the proposal, I don't agree with having the President nominate the judges, and the Senate confirm them. This is way to much overkill for this position. Additionally, this would lead the position to be much more of a political position, than needs to be. I do applaud you for coming up with this bill, and hope that it gets voted on sooner, rather than later!
I realize that I am not from your state, but as the author of this bill, I believe you ...Read more »
Karen J.
I realize that I am not from your state, but as the author of this bill, I believe you should hear from all Americans. Here are my thoughts. As a consumer of both internet radio and terrestial radio (really only in my car), I do think it is unfair for there to be any difference in the royalties paid to the artist by radio stations, cable, satelite and internet radio. As an end user, I see no practical difference in receiving music via Sirius, Pandora, local stations or through my TV. Royalties paid to the musicians should be a constant business cost regardless of what type of delivery to to the consumer that the business has. It is that simple. However, please ensure that the artist will still get fair market royalties paid to them from all business models. Thank you
There needs to be 1 standard across all Internet media streams for what is paid. Perhap...Read more »
Matthew F.
There needs to be 1 standard across all Internet media streams for what is paid. Perhaps I do not understand the economics of the situation but charging differently for different media streams seems almost to be an attempt to eliminate one type of stream in favor o another.
I am not in the internet business or the music business but I am a consumer of both and...Read more »
Thomas O.
I am not in the internet business or the music business but I am a consumer of both and I love internet radio; it is now pretty much all my wife and I listen to for music because it is the only source we know of to hear the music we love. That music is classic, American to the core "rockabilly" music that started in the 50's (Elvis, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, etc.) and still has appeal today. This music is not just a history lesson; it is more than just old, dead "50s" music. Listening to this music is not like watching an old Fred Astaire movie. We don't just "listen," we "dance." Sad to say, but if all we had to go by was commercial radio we would not be dancing very much. We seek this music out. Our number one social activity is to go out dancing. This is social/economic activity in our local economy. We patronize businesses (dance halls, bars, clubs, country fairs, etc.) that provide bands and the opportunity for us to dance. We go to Las Vegas for the annual Viva Las Vegas rockabilly festival. I consider going to Europe to attend festivals. There are great bands out there today playing the old songs and just as many new songs and we want to hear and enjoy these bands (and pay them and/or buy their music) but you won't hear them on commercial radio. I have not even set the push button tabs on my car radio to any music station because it is a waste of my time. Bands are not going to be traveling around the country to play their music if nobody knows who they are. They have no following and are not likely to get one if nobody hears their music. We need to hear them and they need to be heard by us and as far as I can tell, the only way to do that right now is via internet radio. This music may never be the top commercial type of music so it needs an outlet that is available to a wide geographic area. When I listened to what I think is now defunct "Rockabilly Radio" the station listed the number of people listening in the U.S, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, etc. We now listen to DJ Del Villareal's Go Cat Go The Rockabilly Show from Michigan on a LIve 365 station. Tune in! If you like to dance, you'll get the urge. Just to show you how significant this is to me, a few years ago I donated $100 to the old "Rockabilly Radio" station when the person (Don Freeman from Baltimore) who ran it started running ads begging for money and detailing how expensive it was for him to pay royalties out of pocket to make the station viable. I regularly give to official charities but I never gave anything to anybody who was not an official charity before or since. When I thought about all the great times I had had dancing to this music with my wife I could not ignore the request. Apparently, it was not enough as the station disappeared. I support saving internet radio. I will contact my local political officials (both parties).
Music is the heartbeat of our culture...don't put a price on it! Please support making ...Read more »
Jenny S.
Music is the heartbeat of our culture...don't put a price on it! Please support making access to music fair across all technologies. I so appreciate having resources like Pandora to lighten my mood and provide me insights to new artists, new musical styles and rich information on my favorite artists that I would know otherwise! I support equity across musical stations!
I think internet radio is an incredible tool for getting new music out to the masses in...Read more »
Danny D.
I think internet radio is an incredible tool for getting new music out to the masses in an efficient way. With the changes the internet has brought to the music world, we see a major shift in where people discover and consume music. With true radio still following old formats, and public radio funding shrinking every day, it would be fantastic to see the internet radio world thrive with more options for artist to reach out and listeners to grab. Perhaps we should look at the BBC and their systems for radio. Or even the UK as a whole with labels like rinse.fm. I find myself wishing we had an equivalent in the United States. Hopefully this legislation will make it easier for something like this to happen.
Thank you for introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act. I wholeheartedly support it....Read more »
Robert M.
Thank you for introducing the Internet Radio Fairness Act. I wholeheartedly support it. Again thank you.
To whom it may concern, Over the course of my life I have used the internet primarily f...Read more »
Brian M.
To whom it may concern, Over the course of my life I have used the internet primarily for the use my radio experience. I prefer to listen to music over the internet as well as watching my television. I do not believe that one industry should have an unfair advantage over another because of the choice of their delivery system. I will never use Sirius Radio because I believe that the comforts of life in America should allow me to listen to the music I want when I want it. Pandora and Google provide me this option with their music services. It saddens me to hear that Sirius Radio pays less in music royalty fees. It provides Sirius Radio an unfair competitive advantage over other companies. When one industry has an unfair competitive advantage over another, this creates a monopolistically competitive environment where the few earn more than others. I personally feel that to breed innovation there must be an equal playing field, which allows everyone the opportunity to earn the same amount for the same thing. How would the Congress like to pay 80% more than everyone else the rest of their lives for everything they bought just because they served the country? Likewise, how would the American people like it if congress passed a bill that said Wal-Mart would be required to raise their prices 80% because they have never served in congress. Everyone in America decides if they want to pay for their music and television, if they do not want to pay for it. This means that the choice should not affect the company providing the service. Please do everything possible to level the playing field. Respectfully, Brian M.
As a fan of Pandora, I am proud that Senator Wyden, MY Senator, helped create and intro...Read more »
Erik S.
As a fan of Pandora, I am proud that Senator Wyden, MY Senator, helped create and introduce this bill. I would like to say thank you and keep fighting for this bill to pass.
well i like internet radio don't take it away just make it better and tax free you need...Read more »
Ronald M.
well i like internet radio don't take it away just make it better and tax free you need make money not tax it
