The Washington Post is reporting that Pandora, the Internet radio station available on Mac, iPhone, and iPod touch, may be shutting down service soon.

The reason is that Sound Exchange, the money-grubbing blackmailers royalties collection arm affiliated with the Recording Industry Association of America, has imposed restrictive administrative fees ($500 per year per channel) and ridiculous royalty fees (2.91 cents per hour per listener) on Internet radio stations. While many companies that provide Internet radio services have been lobbying Congress for relief, there doesn't seem to be much of hope that happening in the near future.

What this means for all Internet radio stations is that either Congress steps in and attempts to resolve the royalty issues (not likely, considering their record on resolving any issue...), or the stations will need to start charging a subscription fee for their services. Of course, Pandora could start advertising on their site and on the iPhone app to generate some revenues, but as TechCrunch.com's Michael Arrington says, "Perhaps Pandora must be our sacrificial lamb" to focus attention on the entire issue of the recording industry, digital rights, and internet radio stations.

What's your opinion on the intenet radio royalty issue? Leave us a comment.

Earlier today, The Washington Post announced the release of hi-def video podcasts, specially formatted for the Apple TV [iTunes link]. They're encoded at 720p, and include some of their most popular writers. The Washington Post is the first news outlet to specifically target the Apple TV, and their Managing Editor of Multimedia had this to say on Tuesday:

"High-definition is the future of video; we have moved beyond standard definition to provide viewers with a higher standard. We knew we needed to evolve past web video to remain a relevant, innovative news source."

We agree! Afterall, isn't this the year of HD? Oh wait, that was 2005.

[Via MacDailyNews]

John Gruber is at it again, and this time he's taken the MacBook Wi-Fi hack drama to the cleaners with perhaps the most in-depth play-by-play analysis I've seen to date (would you expect anything less?). Mr. Fireball starts at the top, even including an explanation of the various components involved (card, driver and 'third party') to make sure everyone can follow along. He covers the sensationalizing "Hijacking a MacBook in 60 Seconds or Less" article blog post from Brian Krebs of the Washington Post that started all this, mixes in some he-said she-said from the likes of SecureWorks (the company who sponsored this supposed hack at the Black Hat hacker conference) and Apple's PR response, and even finds time to toss in some thoughts on George Ou, a ZDNet blogger who is valiantly determined to go down with the ship. It's yet another fantastic read from Daring Fireball, a site to which I'm glad to say I've purchased a membership. Check it out.

[Update: To his credit, David Maynor did in fact state at the beginning and end of this video that he's using a 3rd party card and drivers in order to enable this exploit. It was later comments from David Maynor and Jon "Johnny Cache" Ellch, as well as the disclaimer SecureWorks posted, that prompted me to claim they 'admitted' to 'falsifying' this hack. While these parties might not have outright lied about what's going on here (a debate that raged back at the time), they weren't exactly clear on any of it either. I have written a new post clarifying some key points of this situation that will hopeful set this straight.]

Remember those hackers in the Washington Post story who claimed to have hacked a MacBook's wireless drivers to gain control of it? Then remember the follow-up story where the author, Brian Krebs basically, um, how shall I say: 'slightly falsified' his way through backing up the original story with excuses that the flaw does exist in Apple's drivers, but Apple 'leaned' on them not to publicize this so they decided to use a 3rd party card? Finally, remember how, in the original article, David Maynor, one of the hackers, is quoted saying "We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something." Boy, that sure doesn't betray any sense of 'I am going to lie, cheat and steal to prove whatever I want' bitterness, does it?

Sounds like SecureWorks, the company who sponsored all this Mac hackery, is finally fessing up to their falsification and admitting that they, in fact, did not find the flaw in Apple's drivers, and that they used a 3rd party card and software to facilitate the exploit. As icing on the cake part of a 'responsible disclosure policy,' they aren't releasing the name of the manufacturer of said 3rd party magic hacking tools. Three cheers for truth (and discretion) in journalism.

Now let's make one thing clear: we at TUAW aren't advocates of the 'Macs are flawless! Long live the prefection that is Apple!' philosophy that naysayers of this experiment are coming under fire for. We are, however, advocates of finding true vulnerabilities on the quest to make the Mac even more solid and secure. The problem here is that this experiment was not one of those quests for truth - it was a quest for, in the words of Mr. Colbert: truthiness. We're genuinely sorry you're annoyed by the commercials, Mr. Maynor (believe me: not everyone loves them), but that's why some genius some time ago invented the ability to change TV channels. Give that remote a whirl some time - it might make your life (and ours) a whole lot easier.

Thanks NotVeryPC