PDA

View Full Version : Urg! Pandora may be shutting down?!



Howard Passman
2008-08-17, 00:24
Great. I finally start using Pandora and now, today, I see an article in the Washington Post that the founder, Tim Westergren, said he may have to pull the plug. Seems that services like Pandora and Rhapsody pay double the fees for copyright of what radio stations pay and those fees are eating up 70% of their projected revenue for the year.

Bummer.

Howard

y360
2008-08-17, 00:53
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503367.html

JJZolx
2008-08-17, 01:01
Might be a good idea to have a backup design ready for the SD website home page, just in case.

Link to article in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503367.html

Nonreality
2008-08-17, 01:20
Great. I finally start using Pandora and now, today, I see an article in the Washington Post that the founder, Tim Westergren, said he may have to pull the plug. Seems that services like Pandora and Rhapsody pay double the fees for copyright of what radio stations pay and those fees are eating up 70% of their projected revenue for the year.

Bummer.

HowardYes this has been a concern for a while. Really an unfair fee for internet radio. I wrote my congressmen and that is what you can do also. It's a start. The fee setup is nothing like any other source.

Nonreality
2008-08-17, 01:30
This again is why traditional labels are so out of touch. Pandora introduces so many artists to people who may start buying music. They are only interested in the immediate and not the long term. It's a sad state of affairs but maybe one that is necessary to finally kill the the current structure of the industry. They are so out of touch that they are willing to kill something that might actually help them.

Fleury
2008-08-17, 08:13
I just tracked down the home page of Sound Exchange, the industry copyright group that is driving all this. The only general email they list is below, with their other contact info. At bottom is the text of the email I just sent to them. All aboard...

info@soundexchange.com

1121 Fourteenth Street NW
Suite 700
Washington DC 20005

202-640-5858
202-640-5859 (fax)

Sound Exchange - I just wanted to thank you all for your efforts to kill internet radio, and all of its nasty services like Pandora, which I read is about to go under thanks to your unreasonable demands. As musical fascists, you should be proud of the work you have done in killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I want to especially thank you for the great financial savings I will realize in not bolting to Amazon to actually purchase recordings of the artists I would never have listened to were it not for Pandora and similar internet stations. It is comforting to know that we live in a sane world, where the business model of the 19th Century still reigns supreme, and where only the lawyers win in the end. Congratulations on selling the industry's soul to the devil.

Goodsounds
2008-08-17, 09:55
I agree that the music royalty playing field ought to be level. The current situation is beyond broken, but unfortunately it is caught up in a process that is more political than rational. So who knows when and how any change happens.

But a deeper problem is at work. Pandora has a revenue and business model problem, the article acknowledges this is their main focus. Most venture-backed start-ups don't have 8 years (as Pandora apparently has had) to get to any semblance of break-even, the plug gets pulled much sooner. I've spent my career in Silicon Valley, and I've seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of startups with cool service or product offerings that ultimately failed because they were unable to develop or perfect a business model. Looks like Pandora may be another one.

maggior
2008-08-17, 13:28
What a shame it would be for Pandora to have to pull the plug. Oh the power of greed...urg (or ugh!) indeed!!

And to hide behind the interest of the artists is shameful. The amount of exposure something like Pandora gives artists is unparalleled.

It will be a sad sad day if Pandora has to shutdown operations. Hopefully a loud voice of reason will prevail at some point.

I've emailed my reps expressing my disgust at the developments.

Howard Passman
2008-08-17, 15:35
I just tracked down the home page of Sound Exchange, the industry copyright group that is driving all this. The only general email they list is below, with their other contact info. At bottom is the text of the email I just sent to them. All aboard...

info@soundexchange.com

1121 Fourteenth Street NW
Suite 700
Washington DC 20005

202-640-5858
202-640-5859 (fax)

Sound Exchange - I just wanted to thank you all for your efforts to kill internet radio, and all of its nasty services like Pandora, which I read is about to go under thanks to your unreasonable demands. As musical fascists, you should be proud of the work you have done in killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I want to especially thank you for the great financial savings I will realize in not bolting to Amazon to actually purchase recordings of the artists I would never have listened to were it not for Pandora and similar internet stations. It is comforting to know that we live in a sane world, where the business model of the 19th Century still reigns supreme, and where only the lawyers win in the end. Congratulations on selling the industry's soul to the devil.

I'll do the same.

Howard

peterw
2008-08-17, 17:48
Pandora has a revenue and business model problem, the article acknowledges this is their main focus. Most venture-backed start-ups don't have 8 years (as Pandora apparently has had) to get to any semblance of break-even, the plug gets pulled much sooner.

And they've had almost a year and a half to figure out a response to the SoundExchange rate increase:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33447

Pandora's such a nice idea, but its suggestions have always struck me as heavily weighted toward RIAA stuff I've already heard, and often already own. Today they not only played a 16 year old song that not only was a relatively big hit back then, they also identified it as coming from the Greatest Hits compilation. That's no way to introduce me to new music. :-(

Perhaps if Pandora played truly indie (non-RIAA) material they could work out some royalty deals outside the expensive SoundExchange licensing. And I'd have more reason to try them again, and perhaps subscribe.

Nonreality
2008-08-17, 19:12
And they've had almost a year and a half to figure out a response to the SoundExchange rate increase:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33447

Pandora's such a nice idea, but its suggestions have always struck me as heavily weighted toward RIAA stuff I've already heard, and often already own. Today they not only played a 16 year old song that not only was a relatively big hit back then, they also identified it as coming from the Greatest Hits compilation. That's no way to introduce me to new music. :-(

Perhaps if Pandora played truly indie (non-RIAA) material they could work out some royalty deals outside the expensive SoundExchange licensing. And I'd have more reason to try them again, and perhaps subscribe.I don't think that their job is just to introduce you to new music. It does play music that it feels is similar to what you have as a seed. You expect perfection and it's not. I get all kinds of music on mine not just RIAA and it does introduce me to new stuff that I do like. Don't you think that most music that is going to be like your seeds is going to be RIAA? I really think they do a great job, and no, they aren't perfect. It's free, what do you want, a rubber biscuit?

pichonCalavera
2008-08-17, 23:37
It would be very sad if they close doors down. I can't listen to it right now, but they have such a great base system. If they close down, I hope they release the information they have gathered over the years (the identification of the music and such, a.k.a. the Music Genome Project)

Howard Passman
2008-08-18, 01:54
I don't think that their job is just to introduce you to new music. It does play music that it feels is similar to what you have as a seed. You expect perfection and it's not. I get all kinds of music on mine not just RIAA and it does introduce me to new stuff that I do like. Don't you think that most music that is going to be like your seeds is going to be RIAA? I really think they do a great job, and no, they aren't perfect. It's free, what do you want, a rubber biscuit?

...I really like Pandora more for the older stuff. I set up old R&R, Motown, blues, etc.. It's ended up causing me to buy a bunch of old stuff that I would have never remembered and purchased.

Whatsa rubber biscuit anyway :-)

iPhone
2008-08-18, 19:17
I agree that the music royalty playing field ought to be level. The current situation is beyond broken, but unfortunately it is caught up in a process that is more political than rational. So who knows when and how any change happens.

But a deeper problem is at work. Pandora has a revenue and business model problem, the article acknowledges this is their main focus. Most venture-backed start-ups don't have 8 years (as Pandora apparently has had) to get to any semblance of break-even, the plug gets pulled much sooner. I've spent my career in Silicon Valley, and I've seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of startups with cool service or product offerings that ultimately failed because they were unable to develop or perfect a business model. Looks like Pandora may be another one.

Please tell me that there is a crystal ball in your home? What start-up can foresee that in the middle of the game somebody decides to change the rules that will put your business and any model of that business, Out of Business? Tell me that? No business can absorb a 700% increase in required fees. For such a young new industry to be required to pay many times its fair share in royalties stinks of RIAA fear of the unknown.

The DOJ should get off its rear and finally do something about the RIAA and Sound Exchange unfair monopoly practices. Sound Exchange should be required by Congress to change their name to No Sound or Silent Exchange!

pfarrell
2008-08-18, 19:54
iPhone wrote:
> The DOJ should get off its rear and finally do something about the RIAA
> and Sound Exchange unfair monopoly practices. Sound Exchange should be
> required by Congress to change their name to No Sound or Silent
> Exchange!

Silly boy. The RIAA, which is just a front for the big five labels,
wrote the DMCA law, which effectively outlaws anything that doesn't give
the labels lots of money. While I was not doing professionally when
Sound Exchange was invented, I bet it was also effectively "chartered by
Congress" at the behest of the RIAA.

DOJ only enforces laws that Congress passes.

That Congress has shown no interest in even reading the laws that the
RIAA ghostwrites for them, is not really DOJ's fault.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

jsprag
2008-08-18, 20:19
Please tell me that there is a crystal ball in your home? What start-up can foresee that in the middle of the game somebody decides to change the rules that will put your business and any model of that business, Out of Business? Tell me that? No business can absorb a 700% increase in required fees.

Are we reading the same article? The fees are going from 8/100th of a cent per song per listener to 19/100th of a cent. Works out to a 137% increase so I'm not sure where you get your 700% figure from.

In any case, I think Goodsounds is right on the money. They are trying to expand and capture listener market share (free Pandora on Squeezenetwork, free Pandora on iPhone) but they aren't getting paid for it. Not a bad technique to start out and establish your position in the marketplace, but giving something away and getting nothing in return simply isn't a sustainable business practice.

Nonreality
2008-08-18, 22:30
Are we reading the same article? The fees are going from 8/100th of a cent per song per listener to 19/100th of a cent. Works out to a 137% increase so I'm not sure where you get your 700% figure from.

In any case, I think Goodsounds is right on the money. They are trying to expand and capture listener market share (free Pandora on Squeezenetwork, free Pandora on iPhone) but they aren't getting paid for it. Not a bad technique to start out and establish your position in the marketplace, but giving something away and getting nothing in return simply isn't a sustainable business practice.
Where does it say that they aren't getting paid for it? I may be wrong but I think that Pandora would like to pay the same as Satellite radio does and not more. Is that a wrong way to look at it? Plus a 700% or a 137% increase for no real reason, how do you plan for either? Regular radio pays none and satellite way less, how do you account for that? I thing they should pay and it seems they do, but why not at a fair rate that works for both parties? I would think they both would benefit unless there is unsaid problems or some paybacks that we aren't aware of right now.

Nonreality
2008-08-18, 22:32
...I really like Pandora more for the older stuff. I set up old R&R, Motown, blues, etc.. It's ended up causing me to buy a bunch of old stuff that I would have never remembered and purchased.

Whatsa rubber biscuit anyway :-)
I know you are older than your picture. :) Darn, I'm too dumb to find a good sound link for you. It would be perfect. :)

Goodsounds
2008-08-18, 23:31
Please tell me that there is a crystal ball in your home? What start-up can foresee that in the middle of the game somebody decides to change the rules that will put your business and any model of that business, Out of Business?

Most startups not only experience one or more significant market or "paradigm" shifts along the way to adulthood, but in fact the better ones cause them. That's what management is for, to successfully direct and alter strategy to deal with changes in the world.

Paying for something that you then give away for free is not a business model. I don't care what you pay for it, advertising will not support the giveaway. I have no specific insights, but I would bet most internet music sites these days are walking wounded, or worse. The problem is not royalties.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy them too, but my guess is that most of them will not be around long term.

Goodsounds
2008-08-18, 23:44
Silly boy. The RIAA, which is just a front for the big five labels,
wrote the DMCA law, which effectively outlaws anything that doesn't give
the labels lots of money.

By your use of language, it isn't clear to me that you understand what a "front" is. The RIAA is the recording industry lobbying organization. Every industry has one, there's nothing special about them relative to the hundreds of others. Most large companies conduct their own lobbying efforts in addition to participating in industry group projects.

I suspect you and I are on the same side of this issue, the approach for internet music royalties makes no sense. But the biggest dog barks the loudest, and RIAA has won this one so far.

pippin
2008-08-19, 00:39
Paying for something that you then give away for free is not a business model. I don't care what you pay for it, advertising will not support the giveaway.

Hmm. So not TV anymore, no Radio, no Google,... they all pay a LOT for stuff they're giving away for "free" to do sdvertising

Howard Passman
2008-08-19, 01:50
I know you are older than your picture. :) Darn, I'm too dumb to find a good sound link for you. It would be perfect. :)


Ha ha ha, that's my son and many years ago. The perfect song for me is *any* old song by Traffic.

Still a rubber biscuit doesn't sound appealing :-)

pfarrell
2008-08-19, 05:00
Goodsounds wrote:
> By your use of language, it isn't clear to me that you understand what
> a "front" is. The RIAA is the recording industry lobbying
> organization. Every industry has one, there's nothing special about
> them relative to the hundreds of others.

The RIAA is a front/lobbying group not for the Recording Industry, which
is what their name says, but just for the major record labels.

The RIAA cares nothing about musicians, composers, singers, recording
engineers, studio owners, etc.

> I suspect you and I are on the same side of this issue, the approach
> for internet music royalties makes no sense. But the biggest dog barks
> the loudest, and RIAA has won this one so far.

Because the five labels have the most to lose, they have put up the most
money. And because Congress is asleep, they have implemented what the
RIAA wants.

What a lot of coverage misses is that the RIAA speaks for a tiny part of
the "music industry" and not only are they biased for their sponsors,
they actively hurt large parts of the industry that folks think they
represent.

Saying that the RIAA represents "the recording industry" is falling for
their propaganda.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

jsprag
2008-08-19, 06:33
Where does it say that they aren't getting paid for it?

As I pointed out, Pandora on Squeezenetwork and the iPhone is both ad-free and subscription fee free. These outlets don't create any revenue yet they still have to pay the licensing/royalty fees. Hence, giving something away and getting nothing in return.

Remember that the service hasn't had a single profitable year. So it doesn't matter if the fee is 8/100th or 19/100th of a cent per song, without some rain the well is gonna run dry eventually. The fee hike only hastens the process.

In all likelihood they have a plan to leverage the market share they're currently building into some sort of positive cash flow. They might be able to pull it off, but they might not. A doubling of expenses certainly cuts the time they have available to figure it out.

I am a happy user of the service (even paid the $36 for an annual subscription) and I hope it survives.

bonze
2008-08-19, 08:06
Does Pandora on SN still work after the 30day trial?

Howard Passman
2008-08-19, 08:23
Does Pandora on SN still work after the 30day trial?

Mine converted automatically.

Howard

toby10
2008-08-19, 09:42
Goodsounds wrote:
> By your use of language, it isn't clear to me that you understand what
> a "front" is. The RIAA is the recording industry lobbying
> organization. Every industry has one, there's nothing special about
> them relative to the hundreds of others.

The RIAA is a front/lobbying group not for the Recording Industry, which
is what their name says, but just for the major record labels.

The RIAA cares nothing about musicians, composers, singers, recording
engineers, studio owners, etc.

> I suspect you and I are on the same side of this issue, the approach
> for internet music royalties makes no sense. But the biggest dog barks
> the loudest, and RIAA has won this one so far.

Because the five labels have the most to lose, they have put up the most
money. And because Congress is asleep, they have implemented what the
RIAA wants.

What a lot of coverage misses is that the RIAA speaks for a tiny part of
the "music industry" and not only are they biased for their sponsors,
they actively hurt large parts of the industry that folks think they
represent.

Saying that the RIAA represents "the recording industry" is falling for
their propaganda.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

I've tried to follow the RIAA vs Internet Radio subject for about the past year.

What I do understand: Like anything that involves Congress, just follow the money. RIAA is one of 25,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC who undoughtedly make political contributions to Congress representatives. RIAA has deep pockets, Internet Radio stations (and those lobbying on their behalf, I presume) barely have enough $$$ to pay their bills.

What I think I understand: RIAA charges nothing to OTA AM/FM broadcasters, very little to XM/Sirius (based on revenues & number of listeners/subscribers), but wants to charge Internet Radio stations a much higher fee rate than other broadcasting types? WHY?

What I don't understand: RIAA claims they are doing this to "protect the artist" which I can understand *if* that were the case. Where are the artists on this subject? Is there any movement among main stream artists where they have signed a petition in support of reasonable fees from Internet Radio streamers? I know the newer and more independent artists would mostly side with Internet Radio as a great way to gain exposure. Get some BIG name artists out there on the networks and cable news shows to voice their support for Internet Radio. It seems the established artists, for the most part, are rather silent on the issue. I'd guess they either side with the RIAA or are afraid to say anything to upset the RIAA.

pfarrell
2008-08-19, 10:41
toby10 wrote:
> RIAA has deep pockets, Internet Radio stations (and
> those lobbying on their behalf, I presume) barely have enough $$$ to
> pay their bills.

Correct.


> What I think I understand: RIAA charges nothing to OTA AM/FM
> broadcasters, very little to XM/Sirius (based on revenues & number of
> listeners/subscribers), but wants to charge Internet Radio stations a
> much higher fee rate than other broadcasting types? WHY?

The OTA radio stations are grandfathered in. Commercial radio stations
are required to pay a "mechanical" fee for each song. Its fairly
expensive, about 5 cents per song. Its OK for the commercial radio
stations because the station's economics are built on advertisements.

The scale works for the OTA stations, you can play a song once, and have
hundreds of thousands of listeners for both the song and the ads. A
station may play 12 to 15 songs per hour, so its paying under $2 per
hour in fees.

Some of the streamers would stream hundreds of thousands of songs, each
costing a fee.

> What I don't understand: RIAA claims they are doing this to "protect
> the artist" which I can understand *if* that were the case. Where are
> the artists on this subject?

Saying "protect the artist" spins a lot better on The Hill than the real
words: Protect the greedy lawyers who are the record labels.

> It seems
> the established artists, for the most part, are rather silent on the
> issue. I'd guess they either side with the RIAA or are afraid to say
> anything to upset the RIAA.

Established artists are under contract to the major labels.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

Goodsounds
2008-08-19, 11:08
Toby,

Your outline of the lobbying landscape is exactly right. Other constituencies affected by these developments are welcome to do their own lobbying, although it would seem most have chosen not to, or have not done so very effectively. The loudest voice gets heard.

I have only been following this sporadically, but I thought there was a difference between the existing broadcast royalty framework and the rules for internet use. I thought broadcast royalties compensated only the composer/publisher group, while the internet structure also extended, in whole or part, to the performers/recording companies. I could be wrong, but that might explain RIAA's interest in the latter and not in the former.

The development of new media forms has caused havoc with many creative interest groups - witness the Hollywood writers strike some months back where one of the gripes was over residual payments for new distribution forms. Hopefully it gets resolved without destroying or severely handicapping the participants.

I'm not going to be baited by my friend who seems to simply like to argue, with or without an understanding of the topic. He doesn't seem to understand what trade groups do. RIAA represents its members, not other constituencies. The fact that he recognizes that they speak for their sponsors, are well funded, and have been effective in getting what they want, is nothing more than an acknowledgement they are doing their job.

toby10
2008-08-19, 11:36
> It seems
> the established artists, for the most part, are rather silent on the
> issue. I'd guess they either side with the RIAA or are afraid to say
> anything to upset the RIAA.[/color]

Established artists are under contract to the major labels.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

Which is why, I suspect, the major artists are pretty much silent on the issue.

pfarrell
2008-08-19, 11:44
toby10 wrote:
>> Established artists are under contract to the major labels.
> Which is why, I suspect, the major artists are pretty much silent on
> the issue.

I suspect that is the reason as well.

Its fairly clear that the "record label" model that has worked from the
1950s up until recently is just not working. Up and coming groups are
not getting signed, and CD sales are way down.

50+ years is a fairly long time for any business model. Not a lot of
surprise that its dying quickly, or that the dinosaurs are fighting for
life.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

toby10
2008-08-19, 11:53
Toby,

Your outline of the lobbying landscape is exactly right. Other constituencies affected by these developments are welcome to do their own lobbying, although it would seem most have chosen not to, or have not done so very effectively. The loudest voice gets heard.......

Unfortunately, the loudest voice = the bigger check book. :(

But this is certainly not unique to the RIAA.

bonze
2008-08-19, 13:28
Mine converted automatically.
I meant - is it still free after 30 days?
I was using it when it worked in the UK, but after 30 days there was a subscription to pay.

Reading through the previous posts in this thread, it seems Pandora is now free for SN users. ??

Nonreality
2008-08-19, 14:24
Another effect of all this is the elimination of the small dogs and some of the almost big dogs. It will come down to just a few choices for the consumer and the control will be complete again. Some people say "who cares about Pandora I like lastfm better". Well if they become the only game around we'll see how much you like it. Also what makes you sure they won't be next. I'm not sure they are a big enough dog in this game. I think Itunes is liking things the way they are going. Apple has never been about giving choices and they are already the big dog. If the big dogs wanted to do something about all of this, they could. Right now they are more content to watch the competition get eliminated and then when the time is right they will negotiate proper royalty fee's for themselves and they will be fine. These are just some thoughts, I hope they're wrong.

Nonreality
2008-08-19, 14:26
I meant - is it still free after 30 days?
I was using it when it worked in the UK, but after 30 days there was a subscription to pay.

Reading through the previous posts in this thread, it seems Pandora is now free for SN users. ??Yes it is free now. It sounds like they will start introducing some commercials for non subscribers. That is if they last long enough.

kh6idf
2008-08-20, 18:54
I think the subscription model like Rhapsody uses is the way to go. Give full access to the entire catalog as long as you pay your monthly subscription. $12.99/month for full access to a VAST catalog in (very) good quality sound seems like a bargain to me.

I really hope Rhapsody stays in business, I am enjoying it immensely with my SB3. The sound quality through my system is very good, even dare I say audiophile quality.

If you haven't tried it, by all means activate the free 30 day trial from the Squeezebox. 2 weeks into the trial period I was totally convinced to sign up.

FredFredrickson
2008-08-21, 06:49
Yeah, everybody's excited about the last.fm radio, and pandora, and what not- and, sure, they're great features! It's always best to have more choices.

That being said, there's no reason to use anything but rhapsody. Full library- channels (radio stations). You can even create your own stations based on preferences or based on other artists. And the best thing is- you like something, you just click "Add to library" and it's there for listening later.

After that, everything else seems so much.. less featured..

simbo
2008-08-21, 07:07
That being said, there's no reason to use anything but rhapsody.
Well, there is... if you don't live in the US. Others have to make do with last.fm (in UK or Germany) or nothing at all (other countries). Consider yourself lucky to have the choice! ;-)

/END_WOE_IS_ME_RANT

I have to say, once I accidentally started my 30-day trial of Rhapsody (accidental in that I didn't actually expect it work from the UK) I've been completely drawn in to its freedom and so completely agree with your statement. It's just a real shame that non-US folks can't subscribe to it, or something similar like Napster. But this has been done to death so I'll stop here.

damager
2008-08-21, 07:46
Agreed - I used to think Subscription Services users were crazy as I built my ultimate mp3 collection. Then I signed up for Rhapsody just to give it a try - and I'm hooked. Everything is there, the shared playlists are great, and I don't have to acquire / catalog / tag / store / backup music files. I'm really seeing the beauty of these services now.

Siduhe
2008-08-21, 08:15
Well, there is... if you don't live in the US. Others have to make do with last.fm (in UK or Germany) or nothing at all (other countries). Consider yourself lucky to have the choice! ;-)

What he said. Other countries outside the US are available (if you're listening Rhapsody)...sigh.

Although, anyone can access Last.fm using the Squeezescrobbler plugin - it's only the integrated "official" plugin that is limited to US/UK/DE.

Jazz1
2008-09-26, 17:16
I was pleased to see Pandora is doing some kind of roadshow. So maybe this is a good sign? I plan to attend and I've run into other people here in Des Moines that plan to see what is happening with this music service.
_________
Join me for a Pandora Get-together in Des Moines!



Hi, it’s Tim from Pandora,

I'm heading to Des Moines to host a Pandora get-together on Monday October 13th, 2008. This event is an opportunity for me to meet our Des Moines-based Pandora listeners and to hear your thoughts on what you like/don't like about the service, what you’d like to see next, and your general ideas on the future of music. I will also share the history of Pandora and what's next for us. Full details below:


Where: 4th Street Theater--adjacent to Java Joe's CoffeeHouse
214 4th Street Des Moines, IA
(map)
When: Monday, October 13th at 7 PM

RSVP: Reply to this email

This get-together is a free event, open to everyone. It's a chance for me to share our story with you and hear what you have to say. I'll tell you about the Music Genome Project's beginnings, living through the dot-com collapse and what this last whirlwind year has been like. I'll also have some nice Pandora gear for everyone!

Please RSVP by replying to this email. You're welcome to bring guests—the more the merrier... just let us know how many. Angie, who is helping plan this, will make sure we know you're coming.

Hope to see you soon.

-Tim

Musketeer
2008-09-30, 06:40
Agreed - I used to think Subscription Services users were crazy as I built my ultimate mp3 collection. Then I signed up for Rhapsody just to give it a try - and I'm hooked. Everything is there, the shared playlists are great, and I don't have to acquire / catalog / tag / store / backup music files. I'm really seeing the beauty of these services now.

Yep, this sums it up nicely. I think a lot of people will come around to this point of view after they give the subscription model a try.

As others have noted, this can be a problem for those located outside the US. I'm in Australia, but surprisingly, in the past I have managed to subscribe to the Musicmatch then Yahoo services for a couple of years (through a loophole in their signup). I also had a paid Pandora subscription that worked fine via the squeezenetwork for the past year (I just upgraded to Squeezecenter 7.x lately and it no longer works).

These services have increasingly become more locked down for those of us outside the US. So this year I won't (can't) be paying for any subscriptions. At the same time, there is easy access to plenty of free music out there. If I want I can get any song I want for free, but - when I could - I was happy to pay for a decent online service.

I'm trying to understand who exactly is winning by closing off access and preventing willing customers like me from paying for these services. If anyone perhaps its me??

Very strange.

lhmperth
2008-09-30, 23:29
I'm trying to understand who exactly is winning by closing off access and preventing willing customers like me from paying for these services. If anyone perhaps its me??

Problem is that licensing rights are regional. Different entities can own the rights to songs in different regions and different laws apply in different jurisdictions.

Pandora may have the licence rights to broadcast the music in the USA, but it would have to separately negotiate such broadcast rights in each country, which may become difficult.

I loved listening to Pandora (like you, I managed to get it through Squeezenetwork in Australia, but that option has now been shut down).

I know that SqueezeCenter lets you set up a proxy.... now... if only I can find a way to make that work to stream Pandora via a US proxy server... any suggestions?

Musketeer
2008-10-01, 00:02
I know that SqueezeCenter lets you set up a proxy.... now... if only I can find a way to make that work to stream Pandora via a US proxy server... any suggestions?

I have a Personal VPN account with Witopia that gives me VPN access through their US servers ( http://www.witopia.net/ ). For security reasons, when I'm travelling and using dodgy open WiFi connections, I VPN through them to the web.

I have tried Pandora on my PC via a web browser, when I am connected through Witopia's VPN and it does work. Unfortunately it requires the software and certificates to be installed on my computers. I can't see how I would set this to work through my router and to my Squeezebox (particularly since I run Squeezecenter on my ReadyNAS NV+ box rather than a full computer).

claypole
2008-12-17, 08:02
You can use Tor and Privoxy. So far I have found this to be very slow and unreliable, so not an ideal solution, plus it forces all web radio through the proxy too. Ideally you just want a single service using this proxy. And lastly, if the squeezenetwork passes any clear text usernames and passwords, these are more likely to be "sniffed" and captured by unscrupulous sources through Tor.

To set it up:

- Install Tor and Privoxy (on ubuntu: apt-get install tor privoxy)
- Configure Tor exit nodes to be US only, add the following line to the bottom of /etc/torrc (for linux):
"exitnodes desync,whistlersmother,lefkada,bettyboop,croeso,To rLuwakOrg,nixnix,inap1,redpineapple,cronic,sasquat ch,slowturtle2"
- Turn off ad blocking in Privoxy by changing "toggle 1" to "toggle 0" in /etc/privoxy/config (for linux)
- Restart Tor and Privoxy
- Add "127.0.0.1:8118" as your proxy in squeezecenter <Advanced><Network><Web Proxy>

For windows settings see http://torandskype.blogspot.com/, which is for setting up skype, but is a similar process.

Any suggestions on how to access a faster proxy and only for a single service, would be great.

agentsmith
2008-12-17, 17:59
Well I have been trying to pay them money but they refuse my money because I am outside the US.

same holds true for many online music retailers and most paid online radio.