Thesis: The Copyright Royalty Board's decision to increase royalty fees for online music streaming is unfair and will lead to popular internet radio stations, such as Pandora, to go out of business. Paper proposal: I would like to research and write a paper on Pandora in the context of online music streaming. The paper would focus more on the Pandora case, but I would also discuss the copyright issues concerning internet radio stations. My research would include Pandora's background, its terms of use, and its method of dealing with copyright concerns. I would also research the Copyright Royalty Board and other internet radio stations. This research would allow me to analyze and argue that increasing internet radio fees are putting internet radio companies, such as Pandora, in risk of going out of business. The goal of my paper would be to discuss the fairness of the royalty fees for internet radio stations and use Pandora as the main example and focus of this argument.

    Pandora has become one of the nation’s most popular internet radio stations. It has about one million listeners daily and 40,000 new customers a day. Pandora has made it to the top ten most popular applications for Apple’s iphone. Listeners can create their own stations according to their musical tastes. All of Pandora’s success, however, may soon reach an end with the increasing royalty rates.
    Royalty fees are paid to a single agent SoundExchange, Inc. The organization represents performers and record companies, and it supports the higher rates on the basis that musicians deserve a larger fraction of internet radio profits. “Our artists and copyright owners deserve to be fairly compensated for the blood and sweat that forms the core product of these businesses,” said Mike Huppe, general counsel for SoundExchange. The organization also believes that internet radio has not done enough to profit from streaming music.
    Some musicians defend Pandora and other internet radio stations on the other hand. Webcasters argue that internet radio offers a larger range of music than traditional radio and also promotes independent musicians. While traditional radio does not pay royalties and satellite radio pay 6-7% of their revenue, webcasters must pay per song and per listener. With the new royalty decision doubling the per performance rates, Pandora and other webcasters may go out of business. Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora, predicts that royalty fees will amount to $17 million this year, which is 70% of the projected revenue. “We’re funded by venture capital,” [Westergren] said, “They’re not going to chase a company whose business model has been broken. So if it doesn’t feel like it’s headed toward a solution, we’re done.”
    This newspaper article is important for my paper because it portrays the trememdous effect the new royalties will have on Pandora. Westergren repeatedly states that the company will go out of business, and this is important for my paper. Performers will not be paid more for their work if there is no internet radio station that will be in business to pay them. In order to ensure a fair royalty rate, the company must not be threatened to close down. My paper defends another model for determining the royalties and argues against the latest copyright ruling on the royalty rates. This article is important because it not only demonstrates the copyright ruling from Pandora's point of view but also from SoundExchange's perspective.

    Matt Nathanson is a songwriter, performer, and recording artist. He is also the most played artist on Pandora.com. In his testimony at the hearing on “Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules across Platforms,” Nathanson emphasizes the importance of internet music and internet radio. Before iTunes, Amazon, and other internet music sources were available, only a handful of artists succeeded. Nowadays, with internet radio stations, such as Pandora and Yahoo!, people are exposed to a variety of music and different genres. Nathanson relates how his own success was contributed by his exposure on internet radio. Internet radio has given independent artists and labels an opportunity to be heard by the public. Customers buy from a much broader group of artists thanks to internet music.
     Nathanson also discusses the financial concerns behind the royalty debate. “When a song I write is played on broadcast, satellite or Internet radio, they pay me an amount which is reasonably related to their revenue. Higher revenue stations pay a bit more; smaller stations and services pay a bit less. But when a song that I perform is played, broadcast radio pays me nothing; satellite radio pays me a reasonable royalty that when combined with other artist payments effectively equals 6% of its revenue; but Internet radio services pay me and other artists a per-song fee that is unrelated to the revenue of the service, which when combined with other artist payments effectively equals 30 or 40 or 70 percent of their revenue or more.” Nathanson argues that it is wrong for the smallest industry to be paying the highest royalty rates. He reports that internet radio is the most important way for independent artists to be heard. He concludes his testimony asking that the royalties changes be made fair for internet radio and demanding that the board keep in mind the future generation of artists.
     This source provides another perspective of the royalty rate issue for my paper. Nathanson's musical career and success demonstrate the tremendous benefit that internet radio has for the public. His testimony is important for my paper because it is supporting evidence that the copyright ruling is unfair. Nathanson, a musician who receives royalty payments, completely supports Pandora's fight against the increasing royalty rates. His testimony makes a strong case for my paper since he opposes SoundExchange's argument that performers need to be paid more on the basis of fairness.