SongCraft, you're one of the many good guys here and I for one, wouldn't want you to leave. Your intentions and good will in posting this thread is much more appreciated than you think and you shouldn't let the nay sayers influence you in staying or leaving. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but not every opinion is the right one.  
 
We need more 'good guys & gals' in here, and I sincerely hope you decide to come back.
 
Fight the good fight......rumble young man rumble.  

SongCraft
...
The person who organized this petition is simply a fellow musician, singer-songwriter, music producer, and 'Independent' record label owner.
 
Like I said, be very careful what you say.  Seriously, it makes no sense for you to comment in such a manner over what is simply --- 'Musicians supporting Musicians'.  There is no corporate drive, there are definitely no lies, no deceptions. If this was true? That would seriously jeopardize this Act, it would give the opposition  (e.g. corporates and of course the NAB) with an estimated $17.5-billion radio industry the edge to crush this Act.  Moshkito, is this what you want?  
 
Seriously, honestly, it makes no sense that you would go against the rights of independent artists and their labels who support this Act.  I hope you completely understand this now.

 
You are mis-interpreting what I am saying.
 
You can not get to work on time driving a Model T today kinda thing!
 
The corporate process is busted, and their excuse is that there is that much money and you and I and Bapu and all the folks here, want a piece of it ... I have absolutely no quarrel with that ... however, it ain't gonna happen, when radio and tv are 'corporitized" and they will find a way to get around you and your ideas.
 
I was "there" during the corporatization of FM radio (I call it the corruption) and how these groups killed all the new and fresh music, and the internet has been a heaven sent kiss to help all the rest of the folks ... but unffortunately, we're all still sitting here trying to figure out how to get a contract or money from one of those biggies ... that time is OVER.
 
You have to own everything, and do everything ... and one of these days, one of you will make it big and help the others ... I doubt it, since there are many examples of people that got famous and did not share a nickel, too!
 
All I'm saying is to set something up that keeps the money at "home" as in a figure eight ... and in this case, I have no guarantees that the idea is correct and not a fumbled football for someone's romantic idealism in a corporate world that owns the stations and the tv's ... and all of these, will never play anything to help you ... to ensure you don't succeed.
 
That leaves the internet ... and prayer!
 
No one, is going to "help" ... and the idea, sometimes for me, is crazy ... you do not think that we had ideas and hopes in the days of Fascist Portugal? That my own dad got to see two of his children have guns pulled to their heads to stop writing "freedom poetry". That several (more like 100) theater and film reviews got censored (it's now published in English btw!!!), to prevent him from writing about the theater and film of freedom?
 
THOSE are issues. As is yours ... but the foundation for yours is a premise that is based on hot air! You will never EVER, be able to tap a nickel out of that radio/tv money! PERIOD!
 
You have to hope that the corporate system dies out and that money dries up and drops ... so something else has a chance, and you have a better chance ... but at that point you will have the Christian Puddings, fighting the Christian Eclairs, fighting the Protestant napoleons ... and nothing will get done ... except watching blood spill!
 
This is not about "careful" ... if you or anyone thinks I am not supporting them or standing by them ... they are not reading the "fine print" ... and guess what's going to kill this? You would be removing people that support you!
 
Best of luck ... I'm done discussing this, because folks are not reading, or asking what it is that I am really saying! If you don't want a different point of view, fine ... just say so, but don't expect others that you did not realize are also there, to come and support you later! Now think carefully before you answer that one! 

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. 
 

Am nit: Mosh, I don't care to make a single penny in the music business. This is my hobby and I don't give a single hoot what people think of what I produce (except those that I privately ask their opinion).

bapu
Am nit: Mosh, I don't care to make a single penny in the music business. This is my hobby and I don't give a single hoot what people think of what I produce (except those that I privately ask their opinion).

Well done.
 
 

I think songcraft means well, but seems to have a very strong issue with anyone who questions or dissents with him on this issue.  I learned that the hard way.  I think even the nicest of people sometimes get bent out of shape when it comes to certain issues regardless of what is actually said.  I have worked in media too long to think any of these issues are so black and white that anyone who dissents should be demonized.  I just had a somewhat healthy disagreement with a production partner because he wanted me to spend hours of time i don't have placing a particular brand of copy protection on a mediocre video although i demonstrated to him that the copy protection can be broken within minutes by 12 year olds. It ended up being a case where we still disagreed, but if he wanted such things done he can do it himself.
 
I think it is difficult for these kind of conversations to not get political to a degree since we are discussing legislation. I don't think this topic in and of itself is the problem, but the venomous nature of where the responses end up that cause threads like this to get closed.

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

There is an argument that says regulations which increase the cost of doing business are actively pursued by corporations because they know the smaller players can't afford to comply with them.

sharke
There is an argument that says regulations which increase the cost of doing business are actively pursued by corporations because they know the smaller players can't afford to comply with them.

I'm sure that is true. It's all about the money and not the small money. It's always about the big money in everything.

SteveStrummerUK

bapu
Am nit: Mosh, I don't care to make a single penny in the music business. This is my hobby and I don't give a single hoot what people think of what I produce (except those that I privately ask their opinion).

Well done.
 
 

I thought it was kind of raw.