http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071219-congress-considers-bill-to-make-ra dio-pay-to-play.html

My personal opinion is that radio should not have to pay. Nor should internet, cable, satellite. Not royalties as I understand them, at least.

My only hope would be this would backfire to such a degree that pretty soon, PLAYING a song will go without charge for all.

We'll see.

But won't this help new artists that would now get some airplay???

I doubt it. Radio survives on mass appeal. Why would a company, let's say Clear Channel, want to play songs that may cost them listeners? Keep rollin' out the hits by proven artists. Without that there is no radio. New artists are discovered on smaller outlets that don't need $$ to survive. It's the beast we've created.

IMHO, this is silly. Pay to play really does not add any value these days.

If this comes to pass, watch indy artists be able to compete one hell of a lot better than those shackled to a label. They remain free to do what gets their music to the most ears.

Anybody still following the Radiohead thing? Turns out they made money with their pay what it's worth bit. Also turns out they are finding that they can leverage their direct relationship with their fans.

Going forward, with all the delivery options, the recommendation from another person, and the scene that can grow around the tunes, are pure gold! Good music, of course, does stand on it's own. However, good music that has a following, also comes with it's own built in marketing. One to one, mouth to mouth. It's powerful, distributed and very low cost.

That depends on distribution being inexpensive!

A recent interview with these guys included some wording about the music itself reaching a point of little value! It's the context in which it is presented that holds value going forward. (very interesting!)

Doing pay to play will run counter to this dynamic. It's gonna harm artists and the venues that have to deal with it. Pay to play means a layer of costs that will limit how and who gets distributed where and when.

People, on the other hand, are gonna pick and choose, and will identify with scenes and movements and people more than they used to. The added costs associated with pay to play, sharply limit how those kinds of things go. On the other hand, it does maintain control.

Of course, control is exactly what the majors want, because in that environment, they can more easily compete without having to deal with core business model changes. Eventually, those business model changes are gonna come. There really is no way back, with people having experienced alternatives.

I say, let them do it then. Anybody who then chooses to not take part in that system, then has an AUTOMATIC cost advantage and that's only good for them, assuming their works have context that is appealing.

If that dynamic plays out, I think CJ has it spot on. This is the kind of thing that is gonna have to play out though. The majors are slow learners. They've gotta take their lumps hard, and repeatedly, before they change.

Even then, they prefer to litigate instead of innovate.

This will most certainly hurt lesser known and independent artists. This is a bad bill that only benefits big business (labels).

Not to worry. This bill is dead until after the '08 elections.

Most... ridiculous... thing... ever.