I appreciate your points slartabartfast, but if you read my posts closely you will see that I was commenting specifically on SongCraft's comment that the bill also affects Spotify and other streaming sites, not broadcast radio. I have not read the bill, but since Spotify already pays performing artists for every stream, it's not clear what is meant by this. I can only assume that the bill seeks to make Spotify pay more to artists than the current rate.  SongCraft went on to suggest that sites like Spotify would have to change their business model to "adapt," if they didn't want to "fade away" (i.e. go out of business). If this is the case then I oppose it as I would oppose any attempt by government to interfere with a business's prices. 
 
A quick Googling around left me in the dark too - all the articles I've read seem to be quite vague about what it means for Spotify. Perhaps either you or SongCraft could enlighten me to this end. 

They still play music on AM/FM Radio?

It won't change my 'opinion' based on benevolent cause i.e equality/fairness.
I have the courage to take action 'against corporations' - But here at Cakewalk forums I am being driven away because I stand by my 'opinion' to support Fair Pay
 
The following are excepts from links/articles on this topic.
 

• The Fair Play, Fair Pay Act aims to equalize royalty payments to musicians from all forms of radio. -  LA Times
• “For decades, music services have gotten away with building their business on the backs of hardworking musicians, paying unfair rates -- and in the case of the $17.5-billion radio industry, paying nothing at all -- for the music they use,” said Michael Huppe (SoundExchange) - LA Times
  
• "We artists and musicians have the right to expect from our profession what others expect from their professions. That through hard work and determination, perspiration and inspiration, we'll have the same fair shot to realize our dreams, answer our callings, support our families. I respect my profession. I respect artists. I respect music." - Blake Morgan, Independent musician, singer, songwriter, producer. -  I Respect Music.Org
• “This bill establishes a uniform fair market value royalty standard for all services.     
  LA Times.
• The musicFirst coalition of music organizations notes that, “alongside China, Iran and North Korea, we are one of only a handful of countries that don’t pay performers when their music is played over AM/FM radio. Unfortunately, because we refuse to reciprocate, music creators in the United States are denied performance royalties for their international airplay. That is a loss for performers that is estimated to cost the United States economy $100 million or more a year.” - MusicFirst Coalition. LA Times.
• Broadcasters say they favor fairness concerning payments, but instead support two other measures, the Local Radio Freedom Act - LA Times
• The potential impact of Fair Play Fair Pay is enormous. The Independent music label sector has a direct impact on our economy, including cultivating thousands of middle-class domestic jobs and employment - Hyperbot News
• We’re also losing overseas royalties because of the AM/FM radio loophole. Because the United States is the only one of 34 OECD countries that does not have an AM/FM performance right - Hyperbot News.

 
My wife is sitting next to me reading this topic and she is also very upset - She said; why are some users behaving so horribly towards me --- they assume, misconstrue and ridicule my opinion; supporting Independent musicians (Fair Pay)!.  Moshkita flames with intent to cause animosity and scare-mongering based on assumptions - This is very upsetting!
 
Sharke, obviously the comment you mentioned  "Apples and Oranges" ties in with CDs and Streaming.
 
I respect your opinion, although I disagree.
You know the old cliche, agree to disagree.
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
                                 I will leave these forums
Reason: Offensive response of people who strongly object to my opinion, a worthy opinion to 'Support fellow 'INDEPENDENT' writers/performers and labels'. ((FAIR PAY))
 
 
Will miss some of the good folks here. There were good times. 
 
Btw, I've never really liked forum software/platforms -- they suck!
 
 

Blimey, more drama.

craigb
Never understood that thinking in a forum.  Once had a guy in another forum who actually quit after years of involvement because he got into an online argument about beer.  He thought Budweiser was horrible (it is), but one other guy just happened to say that he likes it.  Then the usual opinion contest and the first guy quit in a huff.  Really, that was all there was to it!  Go figure.

To be fair, there's generally no point in talking to anyone who thinks a Bud is a suitable replacement for a beer.

sharke
I appreciate your points slartabartfast, but if you read my posts closely you will see that I was commenting specifically on SongCraft's comment that the bill also affects Spotify and other streaming sites, not broadcast radio. I have not read the bill, but since Spotify already pays performing artists for every stream, it's not clear what is meant by this. I can only assume that the bill seeks to make Spotify pay more to artists than the current rate.  SongCraft went on to suggest that sites like Spotify would have to change their business model to "adapt," if they didn't want to "fade away" (i.e. go out of business). If this is the case then I oppose it as I would oppose any attempt by government to interfere with a business's prices. 
 
A quick Googling around left me in the dark too - all the articles I've read seem to be quite vague about what it means for Spotify. Perhaps either you or SongCraft could enlighten me to this end. 

I can not speak to Spotify specifically, but if you and the newly departed SongCraft were to have a serious discussion, you would both need to do a great deal more homework to understand the issue. I recognize that a pseudo-religious animosity to any government intervention in the market may make understanding the issues moot, but I take your question in good faith.
 
The main thrust of the bill is to return copyright protection to recordings when they are played on broadcast radio. There is some overlap in what is considered broadcasting, the law treats a service like internet radio differently than it does on demand streaming or downloads. The distinction being that if the broadcaster chooses the playlist, and everyone receives the same song at the same time, that is broadcasting ("nonsubscription broadcast transmission"), even if the medium is the internet rather than radio waves. If the user chooses the song to download that is online streaming (single play) "subscription" distribution. So to the extent that online services have successfully been claiming to be broadcasting (operating an internet "radio station") and thus not paying recording owners anything for playing recordings, they would have to do so. 
 
Another issue arises from the history of recording rights in copyright.Before there was technology to record sound, the copyright statutes did not envision that it would arrive, so when it became possible to record music, the copyright law protected the songwriters and the publishers of paper music, but was mute on the rights of the creators of recordings. Early cases involved protection for the punched paper used in player pianos, and the courts over a number of years made decisions based on the logical extension of rights to this new technology. State legislatures in some cases provided specific protection, and eventually the federal copyright law did recognize the right to collect revenue from the recording rights (as was previously done for the author rights) in a recording. This was included in the Copyright Act of 1976, but it provided protection only to recordings created after 1972. By that time there was a large amount of recorded music out there, some still very popular, but since the law did not include them, they could be used in many commercial ways without paying their creators. This new bill would extend federal protections to those older recordings. So if a non-subscription streaming service were to have a catalog of old recordings that it was serving up to users without paying for the recording rights, that would change. As you noted previously, Spotify pays for other audio streaming rights already.
 
A third issue arises from how Spotify and other music services pay for their recording rights. As others have noted it is rarely the performer who is paid, but usually the owner of the recording rights. Spotify has deals with a number of major record companies, and in many such deals there is a metered payment to the record company without any reference to who played the music that was recorded. In many cases contracts between the performer and the record company make it unlikely that performers will ever see much from these deals. Studio musicians, engineers and producers are often doing "work for hire" and have zero rights in the final product. The bill does not give such hired performers any new rights. In a some cases the bill would require payments be distributed to performers where a "statutory license" is used (actually where the work is eligible for such licensing). Currently that would be a non-interactive service like internet radio. How that would actually play out is murky. Assuming that the section applies, it would specify a division of license fees between the recording company and various types of free agent musicians who performed the recording, some of whom are being paid nothing now.
 
the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1733/text
 
Title 17 USC which the bill amends and more:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
 
A pretty understandable summary:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f67da04a-b8df-49c8-8327-7bed8f266e9b
 
A very complete and balanced survey of the issues involved:
http://copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf
 

People were more civil when disputes like this were settled with pistols at ten paces.
 
I'm not an artist, but I have friends who are.  I don't discount that there needs to be some equitable way to compensate the wonderful and talented people who create the music I love, but the majority of what I listen to comes from independents who would probably not benefit one way or the other from anything discussed on this thread. 
 
Probably not worth the shot and gun powder.

sharke
I'm done with SongCraft. He just sent me a demented message basically calling me a hypocritical a-hole for having the audacity to disagree with him, ordering me to never interact with him in a post again otherwise it would be construed as "harassment" and threatening me with "prosecution" if I discussed the contents of the message on the forum. Well I guess I'm doing that now, lol. I should have the police pounding on my door pretty soon...

I honestly make no apologies for anything I've said to him and for anything I'm saying now. I'm not the type to start "reporting" people or demanding apologies or asking Cakewalk to ban him or anything like that - I just thought other forum users should know what they're potentially dealing with. It's not the first time he's gone over the line in attacking me in a completely over the top manner, he actually messaged me to apologize for that one saying that he sometimes gets over emotional. Well, I guess this is a regular thing with him. Lol!

He did something similar to me Before. Kind of reminded me of how an ex i ended up getting a restraining order on sounded.  It was too funny to actually upset me. I still wish him well. Emotions are a funny thing. Ironically, I admire that he feels so strongly in what he is supporting, even if i do think it clouds judgement. I really wish this topic could be discussed rationally. I think I will add this to abortion, religion, gun control, politics and racism as things that are next to impossible to discuss unless you are among people who already agree with you.

slartabartfast
I can not speak to Spotify specifically, but if you and the newly departed SongCraft were to have a serious discussion, you would both need to do a great deal more homework to understand the issue. I recognize that a pseudo-religious animosity to any government intervention in the market may make understanding the issues moot, but I take your question in good faith.
 
The main thrust of the bill is to return copyright protection to recordings when they are played on broadcast radio. There is some overlap in what is considered broadcasting, the law treats a service like internet radio differently than it does on demand streaming or downloads. The distinction being that if the broadcaster chooses the playlist, and everyone receives the same song at the same time, that is broadcasting ("nonsubscription broadcast transmission"), even if the medium is the internet rather than radio waves. If the user chooses the song to download that is online streaming (single play) "subscription" distribution. So to the extent that online services have successfully been claiming to be broadcasting (operating an internet "radio station") and thus not paying recording owners anything for playing recordings, they would have to do so. 
 
Another issue arises from the history of recording rights in copyright.Before there was technology to record sound, the copyright statutes did not envision that it would arrive, so when it became possible to record music, the copyright law protected the songwriters and the publishers of paper music, but was mute on the rights of the creators of recordings. Early cases involved protection for the punched paper used in player pianos, and the courts over a number of years made decisions based on the logical extension of rights to this new technology. State legislatures in some cases provided specific protection, and eventually the federal copyright law did recognize the right to collect revenue from the recording rights (as was previously done for the author rights) in a recording. This was included in the Copyright Act of 1976, but it provided protection only to recordings created after 1972. By that time there was a large amount of recorded music out there, some still very popular, but since the law did not include them, they could be used in many commercial ways without paying their creators. This new bill would extend federal protections to those older recordings. So if a non-subscription streaming service were to have a catalog of old recordings that it was serving up to users without paying for the recording rights, that would change. As you noted previously, Spotify pays for other audio streaming rights already.
 
A third issue arises from how Spotify and other music services pay for their recording rights. As others have noted it is rarely the performer who is paid, but usually the owner of the recording rights. Spotify has deals with a number of major record companies, and in many such deals there is a metered payment to the record company without any reference to who played the music that was recorded. In many cases contracts between the performer and the record company make it unlikely that performers will ever see much from these deals. Studio musicians, engineers and producers are often doing "work for hire" and have zero rights in the final product. The bill does not give such hired performers any new rights. In a some cases the bill would require payments be distributed to performers where a "statutory license" is used (actually where the work is eligible for such licensing). Currently that would be a non-interactive service like internet radio. How that would actually play out is murky. Assuming that the section applies, it would specify a division of license fees between the recording company and various types of free agent musicians who performed the recording, some of whom are being paid nothing now.
 
the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1733/text
 
Title 17 USC which the bill amends and more:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
 
A pretty understandable summary:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f67da04a-b8df-49c8-8327-7bed8f266e9b
 
A very complete and balanced survey of the issues involved:
http://copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf
 

 
Thanks for taking the time to clear that up. I'm still not 100% sure what it will mean for Spotify, but I guess we'll see. Of course SongCraft could have explained those things in answer to my questions, in fact I was kind of expecting him to given his personal interest in the bill and the work he says he did in campaigning for it, but I guess he didn't know either. I do take issue with your description of my objection to government interference in pricing "pseudo-religious." That would suggest some kind of blind faith - in actual fact I'm just sticking to a principle that I can defend with reason and logic. 

Wow.. he sent me another ridiculous claim that I somehow violated the law by merely mentioning he sent me an insane message.  I guess I am headed to jail now. 
 
As far as the topic,  as someone has already mentioned, I doubt this increases the bottomline for individual artists anyway.  I have watched too many similar attempts at one side's definition of fairness end up having the opposite affect. The people most likely to reap benefits would be the already extremely wealthy types with extreme airplay due to the monopoly like state of radio. Rihanna, maroon 5, etc could easily get even more radio play as clear channel takes the less risky path of creating a smaller pool of"stars"to cram down our throats. Not saying that is guaranteed, but I doubt the industry declares "fairness has won" and simply cheerfully comply. They will, like all businesses react in the way that recoups potential loss. I think the conversation should always be open but that works both ways.

I have noticed that they are editing songs to be even shorter on some songs by doing things like cutting out verses and solos.