Pandora Imposes 40 Hour Monthly Limit for Mobile Freeloaders

21

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

skirge01

Yeah, 4% sounds pretty innocuous. However, according to Wikipedia (sourced from VentureHarbour), Pandora had over 150 million users in 2012. That means 6 *MILLION* Pandora users are affected by this cap. I'm quite certain there are other streaming services who would LOVE to pick up 6 million users.

avatar

TrollBot5000

Ok now maxpc is treading into my turf. I'll say this first off then read the comments below. Windows=Elpis Linux=Pithos Mac=fuck i dunno who the hell uses that pretentious OS.

avatar

mls067

They, the record companies, need to start charging radio stations for the songs they play then. It doesn't make sense that they don't charge them if they charge the streaming companies.

avatar

Engelsstaub

This has been done for as long as I can remember. It's called "royalties."

avatar

mls067

I understand that. But what I don't understand is why not charge everyone who plays their music the same? I call BS

avatar

livebriand

Because they have to keep their outdated business model. It would make too much sense and probably lead to more profit if they went with the flow and embraced new tech and stuff. Why go with it when you can fight it and loose? (while idiotically increasing piracy along the way)

avatar

Engelsstaub

I still buy records and CDs. I usually encode my own lossy files for portable use, but am not averse to buying an occasional album from iTunes.

Streaming isn't really my thing, but I can see why it would be more attractive for many to use a service like this or Spotify to listen to music. I like having a collection but some would prefer to just stream and own nothing. Different strokes...

Either way people should pay. If you don't support music perhaps one day there will be little left but Metallica, Bieber, and the shitty local band covering songs from the artists you used to listen to but now have no label or distribution.

If it's of value to us we should pay. It it's not so much then we can sit through commercials and streaming limits. ...I do find Spotify very useful for checking out an album before I commit to buying to it though (which is ironically still being passed around as an excuse for illicit downloads by some people who feel they are entitled to free entertainment.)

avatar

dgrmouse

Engelsstaub said, "people should pay. If you don't support music perhaps one day there will be little left but Metallica, Bieber, and the shitty local band covering songs from the artists you used to listen to but now have no label or distribution."

This is an interesting fallacy. The vast, vast, vast majority of musicians have no major record contract. If big music dies, small music will grow.

It's amusing that you managed to insult both top10 and local professional musicians in the same comment. Most popular musicians started out in local bands, so maybe your implication that all local bands are "shitty" is a representation of your surroundings or your taste. On the other hand, I doubt that you're going to find too many contracted artists willing to openly state that they're only making music for the money. Historically, most artists die poor - and yet, somehow folks still make art.

If you wanna' feel sorry for some entity, a record company is an exceedingly poor choice.

avatar

Engelsstaub

dgrmouse said: "in my zeal to absolve myself for helping myself to copyrighted materials I'm going to get really angry at someone else's take on a situation. I'm further "amused" by how I've place words in someone's mouth and get all melodramatic because someone made an illustration using two big bands he dislikes and one hypothetical one made up to illustrate a point."

My turn:

...it's called an illustration. I know you're not too stupid to see that and you're just being disingenuous (acting stupid for dramatic effect) because you don't like my point of view. IOW making crap up and turning a comment about two bands and one hypothetical one into "you managed to insult both top10 and local professional musicians in the same comment..."

Normally this sort of crap isn't worthy of anyone's response because you're just popping off at the mouth. I'll go ahead and include it to keep the conversation on the same level as yours. To the real issue at hand:

Nearly every last band I listen to relies on a label, professional promotion, and management. I can nearly guarantee that the same is true about almost all of the music you jack...I mean "acquire." Now I will give you this: it IS much easier for a band to self-produce and distribute its product than it was before people could just help themselves to a digital copy of a product they do not own the rights to.

You want to pretend you're "sticking it to the man" "Big Music, Big This, Big That..." by ripping off a product they produced? Fine if it assuages and soothes you. You're also ripping off those "starving artists" too. I want you to read very carefully and pay extra special attention now: None of the bands I support by going to shows or buying their merch could get even a club tour as an opening act without a label and management. In fact I'd not have even heard of any of them. Not. Even. One.

You think you're fucking Robin Hood on some noble crusade against Big Rich Record Companies? The Robin Hood of myth stole from the rich to benefit the poor. You're stealing from the rich AND the poor to benefit yourself. You're not even trying to help those "starving artists" you speak of. You just think they should all come right into your basement and entertain you for free. You're no supporter of music or any art.

Screw you and everything you "stand for."

avatar

Biceps

I really agree. I like to have a collection, and at least if there is an EMP blast I'll still have my CD collection.

I think the revenue issue has been something most bands have been dealing with since mp3's came out, though... so for at least 10 years. My understanding is most bands make their $$ from live performances, and the music sales are not a huge contributor and haven't been for some time. Most of the record companies haven't changed their models accordingly, but a lot of artists have.

avatar

Engelsstaub

You're right. From what I understand it's costing the artists from merch sales. The companies that promote the acts are taking a cut of their touring profits.

Many labels, as you've stated, have failed to adapt to reality. They're biting the dust as a consequence. Roadrunner is dropping nearly everyone but Nickelback and Rush. They've been firing industry legends who've been there for years like Monte Conner (see wiki if you're not familiar.)

Slightly good news is this: the small labels are doing pretty modest business and finding new and creative ways to market bands that normally wouldn't get a lot of attention.

Thank you for supporting the art of music, Biceps. Sincerely.

avatar

jgottberg

Seems reasonable to me... I can't imagine having 40 hours a week devoted to listening to music, especially just from ONE source.

avatar

wolfing

it's actually very easy. I use(d) Pandora to listen to music while at work. That's about 40 hours/week, and the limit is actually 40 hours/month. Don't they have ads that supposedly cover the fees? Or am I thinking of another service?

Fortunately, Slacker has no such limit for now.

avatar

jgottberg

Oh shoot, I misread that. Thanks for pointing it out. I thought it was 40 hrs a week. Ok then... 40 hrs per month is a bit extreme. I use it but only when working out which equates to about 1.5 hours a day X 5 days a week with a smattering of my own stuff thrown in. I'll never see a difference I guess. But really, if I used it anymore than that, I'd pay for it.

And yes, they have ads but just every so often. It appears that HuluPlus and Pandora are using the same model.

avatar

LiquidAlloy

Freeloaders. what dicks

avatar

cindylo

Hello Spotify how are you doing today

avatar

jgrimoldy

Soooo, just register multiple accounts?

avatar

j_j_montez

That was my first thought.

avatar

Nixon

I actually hit their cap once listening from my PC while playing games.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Sounds like a BS reason from Pandora. The information presented in the MPC article, "evidence" presented by Pandora, is insufficient to illustrate that Pandora was coerced into these measures by greedy music companies.

avatar

MaximumMike

Well, the fact that Pandora tried making this service both free and unlimited nearly two years ago, might give you some indication of that. Also, everyone knows how greedy the music companies are. That's not some tin-foil-hat conspiracy. Believing that the music companies aren't greedy would be like believing that peopled don't have noses. Heck, just ask the musicians. Nonetheless, it's obvious that Pandora's current model doesn't seem to be working for them and they believe their business has more of a future in charging for their service than it does in not charging for their service. Is that greedy? I don't know. Does it suck? Yes. But I don't see any big conspiracies here.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.