Internet radio companies are trying to trick artists into supporting their own pay cut.

Great music can inspire deep emotions, and businesses have long sought to harness this power in order to make money. Nothing wrong with that – everyone deserves to make a living – but too often it leads to less than scrupulous behavior. The latest example is how Pandora is pushing for a special law in Congress to slash musicians' royalties – and the tactics they are using to trick artists into supporting this unfair cut in pay.

It's a matter of principle for us. We hope that many online and mobile music services can give fans and artists the music they want, when they want it, at price points that work. But those same services should fairly pay the artists and creators who make the music at the core of their businesses. For almost all working musicians, it's also a question of economic survival. Nearly 90% of the artists who get a check for digital play receive less than $5,000 a year. They cannot afford the 85% pay cut Pandora asked Congress to impose on the music community.

Last year, we joined over 130 other bands and artists to oppose Pandora's campaign to cut the royalties paid for digital radio spins. Widespread artist opposition stopped them last year, so this year Pandora is trying to enlist artists support for their next attempt at passing this unfair legislation.

Musicians around the country are getting emails from Pandora – even directly from the company's charismatic founder Tim Westergren – asking them to "be part of a conversation" about the music business and sign a simple "letter of support" for Internet radio.

Sounds good. Who wouldn't want to be "part of a conversation"? Who doesn't support Internet radio? What scrooge would refuse to sign such a positive, pro-music statement?

Of course, this letter doesn't say anything about an 85% artist pay cut. That would probably turn off most musicians who might consider signing on. All it says about royalties is "We are all fervent advocates for the fair treatment of artists." And the only hint of Pandora's real agenda is the innocent sounding line "We are also fervent supporters of internet radio and want more than anything for it to grow." The petition doesn't mention that Pandora is pushing the growth of its business directly at the expense of artists' paychecks.

Fine print is one thing. But a musician could read this "letter of support" a dozen times and hold it up to a funhouse mirror for good measure without realizing she was signing a call to cut her own royalties to pad Pandora's bottom line.

We've heard Pandora complain it pays too much in royalties to make a profit. (Of course, we also watched Pandora raise $235 million in its IPO and double its listeners in the last two years.) But a business that exists to deliver music can't really complain that its biggest cost is music. You don't hear grocery stores complain they have to pay for the food they sell. Netflix pays more for movies than Pandora pays for music, but they aren't running to Congress for a bailout. Everyone deserves the right to be paid a fair market rate for their work, regardless of what their work entails.

We're not saying that the music business is perfect or that there is no room to compromise. Artists would gladly work with Pandora to end AM/FM's radio exemption from paying any musician royalties – a loophole that hurts artists and digital radio alike.

Other changes and compromises may be possible as well. The open letter to Pandora that we signed last year said, "Lets work this out as partners" and that's what we should do. But tricking artists into signing a confusing petition without explaining what they are really being asked to support only poisons the well.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Dang it Pandora why do you have to make me hate you? I've found so many great bands through that service. I really don't want to have to boycott it because they're screwing over musicians.

 LordofHats wrote:
Somehow Pink Flyod crying that they can't afford the paycut seems hollow to me. Reminds me of a South Park episode

 Cheesecat wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Dang it Pandora why do you have to make me hate you? I've found so many great bands through that service. I really don't want to have to boycott it because they're screwing over musicians.

Just use YouTube, Wikipedia, allmusic, etc they make finding good music easier.

 daedalus wrote:
On one hand, I like seeing artists get paid. On the other hand, I wonder how much of that money actually makes it past the ever-gorging fanged maw of the industry.

Especially when internet based radio companies have higher royalties than radio stations because of the "...on a computer" effect.

Pandora: Pink Floyd Wrong About Royalty Cut

Pandora has responded to Pink Floyd's claims that the company is "tricking artists" into supporting a massive royalty cut, saying the rockers have been given "badly misleading information." In a statement published by Business Insider, the music streaming and discovery service pointed to "a well-orchestrated campaign by the RIAA and their lobbying arm to mislead and agitate artists" as the culprit.

The three surviving members of Pink Floyd accused Pandora of seeking to cut musicians' pay for digital radio play by 85 percent, though a similar plan failed last year – partially because of a letter signed by more than 125 artists including Pink Floyd, Billy Joel and Rihanna. While Pink Floyd accused Pandora of "tricking artists into signing a confusing petition without explaining what they are really being asked to support," the streaming service says the 85 percent figure is incorrect, and notes that Pandora pays songwriters and performers more than comparable services.

The source of Pink Floyd's 85-percent figure is also unclear; though the band linked to an article in The Register, Business Insider points out that the piece doesn't cite a source for the number.

Pink Floyd have had an uneasy relationship with the music's new digital landscape: though they recently agreed with Spotify on a streaming deal for their catalog, they held out for years, and their label, EMI, signed a deal with the streaming service in 2011 without the rights to Floyd's music. The rockers also sued EMI in 2010 for allowing single-song downloads, instead of full-album purchases, on iTunes.

The rockers also sued EMI in 2010 for allowing single-song downloads, instead of full-album purchases, on iTunes.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

The rockers also sued EMI in 2010 for allowing single-song downloads, instead of full-album purchases, on iTunes.

Why do that?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
They put all that work into recording an album after all, what's the point if 90% of your customers just buy 2 or 3 songs off of it and leave the rest?

 LordofHats wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
They put all that work into recording an album after all, what's the point if 90% of your customers just buy 2 or 3 songs off of it and leave the rest?

COnsumer demand. A lot of people through out the 80's and 90's bought whole albums just to get 1 or 2 songs.