Blake Morgan and others like him are not getting and will never get rich on royalty payments from Pandora. They won't even be able to make a living. Music labels stand to lose quite a bit more. As such, they play on the emotions -- triggering irrational thinking that spawns pointless arguments -- of people such as Morgan to protect the more meaningful cut they carve out of the royalties Pandora and Internet radio pays. The music industry uses the struggling musician as a pawn. As the good guy in a battle against the entity they decided to cast as villain -- Pandora. Morgan's diatribe against Pandora amounts to a defense of a music industry that does very little for artists, established or otherwise. Especially otherwise. The industry knows how to line its pockets the old-fashioned way. They know how to collect royalties while they complain about them, however they're woefully unprepared to create new revenue streams and protect and promote artists as we settle into an era of almost entirely digital streaming distribution.
Salient Point 3: Morgan made an inaccurate statement in the Bloomberg interview. He claimed Pandora says they don't want to pay for music. This is simply untrue. Pandora merely wants what it calls an equitable royalty structure. One where Internet radio no longer subsidizes the non-existent or low rates paid by broadcast radio, satellite radio and cable television. In fact, in a bit of a contradiction, Morgan goes on to, at day's end, agree with Pandora. Morgan supports a bill revived by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who acknowledges inequity in the current royalty scheme. Simply put, Nadler proposes decreasing the rate Internet radio such as Pandora pays, while increasing the rates of terrestrial radio, satellite radio and cable. Of course, there are a million issues here. How can terrestrial radio companies, mired in debt, afford to pay anything? They require what amounts to the Pandora subsidy to keep their operations alive. (For example, Clear Channel ( CCMO) has more than $20 billion in debt it continues to shuffle around just to stay afloat). What about outlets such as Spotify that do direct deals with labels, not compulsory licensing mandated by regulators? What about Sirius XM ( SIRI) and Clear Channel, who have done deals and it appears would like to do more deals with labels independent of existing structures? However, in theory, it make sense. Meet somewhere in the middle. And even though it presently supports the The Internet Radio Fairness Act, I'm confident Pandora would go for a compromise bill -- something like Nadler's (if not it) -- if sensible. Because -- and I know this more than I know anything in life -- Pandora is not anti-artist. In fact, as I explained in Pandora Must Promote Indie Artists, Expose Music Industry Injustice, Pandora "has done more for local and indie artists in the last 30 minutes than the music industry has in the last 10 years." And what they do and can/will do for the struggling musicians that groups like musicFirst use and the broader industry rapes and pillages is only set to expand. There's a reason why, as much as everybody from terrestrial radio to the music labels criticize Pandora, they continue to cut deals with them. Many, including Clear Channel's top billing sales people, jump ship to work for Pandora. In Part Two, I explain this, while elaborating on the shocking injustice musicians such as Blake Morgan should really be outraged about. Follow @rocco_thestreet -- Written by Rocco Pendola in Santa Monica, Calif.