. .

Ha come on SongCraft, let's not get into the whole "these forums ain't what they used to be" thing, I have nothing against you personally, I just disagree with you strongly on this issue. Hey that's life! I have raging disagreements with some of my best friends but we somehow manage to stay friends!
 
You say "The rates for Streaming should be very similar if not equal to what is regarded as 'Airplay' (brick n mortar radio stations)" but then in the next sentence, say "Though I agree with what you said about comparing, 'Its apples and oranges'."
 
If, as you admit, the two are apples and oranges (and they are), then by what reasoning should Spotify streaming rates be in line with radio airplay? I brought up some (what I consider to be) fair points about the streaming fee being paid out over the lifetime of a song and asked you to consider how this compares to a one-off royalty payment from a CD. You didn't address that point. Do you or don't you believe that a good song could earn as much as a CD royalty payment from one listener in its lifetime? If it could, then it makes a mockery of the argument that Spotify stream payments are too low, and thus that whole area of the "Fair Pay" act. 
 
I'm not really swayed by any vague or emotive arguments about independent artists "fighting for what is right." I need to be sure that what they're fighting for is fair or is right before I agree with it. And on this issue of Spotify streams, I disagree. You say that streaming services shouldn't offer anything for free. I'm pretty sure they know more about that business model than you. Are you aware that the free Spotify option has ads? That's why they're able to offer it for free. If they weren't getting some kind of return from it then I doubt whether they'd be doing it. 
 
When you say "either adapt or fade away," I understand perfectly what you are saying. You're saying that businesses like Spotify should "get with the plan" (i.e. your proposed government legislation) or go out of business. That's every bit as sinister as I said it was. I have no problem with the idea of companies like Spotify adapting to changing market conditions. That's just a natural part of doing business, and is essential if businesses are going to evolve and improve. But being forced to adapt to the heavy hand of government legislation is quite another thing. You have politicians who have no experience in the business demanding that companies abandon their own business plans - which have come about through their own first hand experience and analysis and forecast - on the basis that a group of musicians believe they're not being paid enough. But who doesn't want higher pay? It doesn't exactly clinch the debate. 
 
Don't get me wrong, I would love for artists and musicians to be making more money. But I don't see them as being any more special than anyone else in this regard. They are in business, like anyone else who has a product to sell. It's not the fault of Spotify that they aren't making a lot of money. You have the advent of digital formats to thank for that. As soon as it became viable to send music in compressed format over the internet, sales were bound to plummet along with the overall value of music. Companies like Spotify have found a way to monetize music again. It's happening slowly but surely, and like I said, they still only have a tiny fraction of the music buying public on board. Any legislation which fails to take that into account is flawed and dishonest as far as I'm concerned. As the streaming market grows, we could quite possibly see the situation evolve and settle into something that's more palatable for all parties. Clobbering it with heavy handed "comply or die" legislation in its infancy is just plain wrong. 
 

Personally I am suspicious of the whole thing. The "big boys" will ALWAYS find a way to profit. They always have and always will.
I strongly believe in "The Law of Unintended Consequences", it ALWAYS comes in to play... especially when the government tries to fix anything, so I can't in good conscious sign anything.
Nadler being involved makes me even more suspicious of it.
 
My first thought was about Spotify, which I think is the future and will in the marketplace, correct itself if regulations don't get in the way because regulations are always put in place by the "rich and powerful".
 
I hope that, if they pass some new law, it does not "accidentally" make things even worse... like most things that government does.
 
J