If I could just make 1/2 the money I spent on plugins, I'd be a rich man.......(Bapu would be a millionaire).

Sharke, it looks like there have been deletions from the discussion, so I am clearly commenting on comments you made to something I have not seen. Nonetheless, you seem to be characterizing this bill as some sort of government interference in the conduct of business. Although  such interference may be objectionable to you on philosophical (and possibly on practical) grounds, this bill does not do what you say. It is instead a withdrawal of the government from a lopsided advantage conferred by the government on one business (radio stations) over another business (recording performers). The rights of a performer in the creation of a recorded work were pretty well recognized by legal decisions prior to any specific performance rights legislation, and derive from the general principle of copyright that the creator owns his contribution to the work of art. Under ordinary circumstances, the performer would require payment for the use of his recorded performance from the venue where it is played, just as the composer would charge for the basic song, and just as the guy selling beer would expect to be paid for the use of his product. 
 
As it became clear that the courts were beginning to recognize that the people who made the recordings including the performers and recordists were entitled to intellectual property rights, the Congress no doubt more sensitive to the influence of a major communication industry which could have an impressive impact in shaping the public opinion regarding the wisdom of re-electing anyone who opposed them than to the limited clout of the recording industry and the working poor performers, blocked the performer's access to any portion of income derived by radio from their recordings by a piece of law. The only fairness argument proposed for this massive government transfer of individual rights to an industry was that there was a theoretical benefit to the free airplay of recordings in that such wide distribution of an evanescent form of the music would cause the public to buy the physical recordings--in effect the performers/recordists were getting free advertising and would be expected to make their money in record sales.
 
If you read the proposed bill, you will find that it is mostly a tedious list of deletions from the copyright law that removes the distinction between the rights a performer has in music played on radio and music played anywhere
else. As CD sales plummet, the value of the "free advertising" clearly falls as well. There is no longer any justification for this aberration of the principles of copyright to give free product to a politically powerful industry by allowing the taking of it from the creators. A similar bill was proposed in 2009, and you may find the testimony by the copyright office regarding that bill expresses SongCraft's points more elegantly. Unfortunately, the radio industry lobby was able to kill that bill before it could become law. They are still in a position to do so with this latest bill. 
 
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat070509.html
 
 

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. 

slartabartfast
Sharke, it looks like there have been deletions from the discussion, so I am clearly commenting on comments you made to something I have not seen. 

Just FYI - nothing in this thread has been deleted.  at least a couple of the hosts are watching the thread to make sure it stays civil, but nothing yet has been deleted.

They still play music on AM/FM Radio?

It's  interesting  that it is being suggested that streqming services adapt when they are the ones at the forefront of change. Kids around here listen to spotify more than 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!
 
 

Wow, well if you gotta go you gotta go. It's a shame man, it really is. People disagree with me all the time on matters I feel passionately about, but I've never gotten offended about it or felt like I had to cut myself off from them. My dad is a staunch libertarian and his best friend a raging socialist and they've been arguing about it for almost 50 years, yet never fallen out about it. 
 
But I guess if you equate people disagreeing with you with "being nasty to you" then you're going to feel like crap. Nothing anyone can do about that except tell you that you're mistaken. 

Blimey, more drama.