After thinking on this for a bit I realize I did pay, I listened to the music and ads. I then sometimes bought a song or what they were advertising. The key here is they get money from ads by how many people listen and I listened. The companies advertising hope I buy and pay for my attention. I also buy music that I only knew about because of the radio, yet the radio station doesn’t get a paid for that.

Playing music is a benefit to both the party that plays it and the musician and the people who play the music pay the musician once for the music just like everyone else.

1) “Did you ever discover artists you especially liked via the radio?”

2) “Did/would you ever share in the cost of paying an artist you liked to perform at a concert by purchasing a ticket to attend?”

3) “Would you ever offer to pay a $1-10 share in the cost of paying an artist you liked to produce a new single in a recording studio if you were only charged upon delivery of the CD or high bitrate FLAC/MP3 file that you could freely share, remix or sell?”

When I did listen to the radio I didn’t pay. (simple answer = NO)

Do you pay money to listen to the radio?

” Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising? ”

Let’s see it from another trades side

” Would you have an apple seller pay me if they used my basket to make money selling apples?”

My basket helps with the presentation, and attract customers who then buy the apples.

Now let’s also flip the coin.

” Would you have me pay a radio station if they helped me sell my song? ”

Radio stations make money off advertising, by playing your music aren’t they advertising your music?

Also

” Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising? ”

Could you prove that your song VS everyone the other songs they play make them any more money?

Aren’t they already paying you by buying the CD/song? – just because they make more, longer than the one CD sale doesn’t mean they owe you more.

I hope this helps.

In response to the peer’s question, I’ve opened a new thread to try to focus this particular discussion – ‘Where money is made, artists should get paid’

Do you think that is a good idea?”

I think it’s a great idea, and it answered my question about small internet radio stations with no advertising income. I think a lot of the small net radio stations with ads are running them simply to offset bandwidth cost, it would not surprise me at all if most of them were running at a loss even with ads.

One thing I DON’T think you should be paid for is when some person sings your songs at their workplace, even if other people can hear them while walking by. An example of this was posted in p2pmet here: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/30106

There’s nothing in nature that enables a craftsman to walk up to a user of their works and take a share of their income on the basis that such income is alleged by them to be partially dependent upon the use of the works they’ve manufactured.

The ability to collect what are known as ‘monopoly rents’ is certainly lucrative, but it is neither natural nor ethical.

The privilege of copyright takes away someone’s liberty. A license (whether voluntary or compulsory) gives some of it back.

A royalty is effectively saying “The king has suspended your liberty to play my songs unless you obtain my permission (at my price) or pay a compulsory license fee”.

Perhaps you imagine a compulsory royalty as in “Whatever revenue you make in your business of playing others’ songs, for which their permission is not required, 10% of it will be collected by the PRS to be disbursed as they see fit”?

A tax for musicians? Easy money if you can get it. It’s an idea that is clearly seductive.

Your business uses software? It’s now free of charge, but 10% of your revenue will be collected and disbursed to all software engineers. Nice.

Most people have to go through the hassle of selling their products in a free market. They can’t simply pile ‘em all up in the middle of the town square and wait for a treasurer to send them a cheque in the post, that results from a vast team of auditors scouring the land for who used what, how much, what value was extracted, and what revenue was generated.

Of course, if like a wealthy publishing corporation you have the ear of the king and can convince him it’s worth his while to make your business much easier and more profitable, then he might just grant you a privilege that prevents competition and warrants the creation of an organisation legally empowered to collect your dues.

The last time that happened was in 1710, so there’s certainly a precedent, but then it was familiarity that convinced far too many people that there was nothing wrong with slavery. Familiarity with copyright doesn’t make it right. It is the fact that it has generated the publishing corporations’ wealth that keeps it legislated, and that it has not noticeably impacted people’s liberty, that has kept it legislated. However, it is the relatively recent advent of information technology that is making people aware of the fact that a right royal conspiracy in 1710 suspended their liberty, and the people want it back.

Now is not the time to propose new, improved privileges. Now is the time to finally abolish them.

You’re right, it’s not.

The answer is still yes and no.
I’m sorry if you can’t see that.