You’ve got the details to the TV provider feud a bit wrong. Because it has somewhat of a direct relationship to this discussion, I’m going to straighten this out…

The networks that broadcast over the air want the cable companies to pay them for the use of their broadcast signal. The advertisers pay these networks for the broadcasted ads – NOT the cable companies. The debate is over whether or not the ad revenue properly levels the playing field. That part’s neither here nor there in our discussion here.

I mentioned this squabble over TV dollars because of the similarity to an issue raised by your aspirations to have ISPs and/or websites pay a license for simply “using musical works”.

There’s a slight difference though…
TV networks want money from the cable companies, not for using the content, but for using the broadcast streams themselves. This should, theoretically, give the networks a stronger argument for license than yours (based on content), as the networks ARE the creators of the signal. But even at that level of “ownership”, it’s not clear to anyone if what they’re asking for is fair.

The other main concern this shares with your license scheme is that additional license fees will just be passed on to the consumers, but I think the comparative arguments are already enough even without that.

The bottom line is, the TV licensing argument is a very messy one. Your argument for similar fees placed on ISPs/websites hasn’t even got the same merit as that of the TV networks, and would, therefore, be even more impossible.

In the TV argument, each network is the SOLE broadcaster of a particular signal, and they can’t figure out what’s fair. In the Internet argument, there would be ENDLESS, MULTIPLE SOURCES of content to consider, from ISPs to websites. The complexity would not only be staggering, but beyond reason.

Here’s an interesting twist to the TV feud…
If the use of a broadcast deserves an additional license, what would stop the content producers from wanting to apply your principle for themselves, and charge a “usage license” on a “per program” basis to BOTH the networks and the cable companies??

(Might as well toss the TV in the trash!)

but, in your number 33, I don’t think anyone wants to have the entire internet pay a tax. That idea hasn’t been introduced. The idea was about websites who use media paying a contribution and that the ISPs would perhaps pay a contribution based upon the usage. It is similar to what I think DA pointed out in Canad about the Cable stations who were fighting with the local TV stations. The cable stations were selling the local TV’s programs via their subscriptions, however, the local TV stations were going out of business even though the cable companies were making money through advertising from those station’s local programs. The ISP situation is somewhat similar. The idea wasn’t to tax the entire internet and specifically, in the case of the cable companies, they shouldn’t be able to raise the cost of cable to their customers because they were selling those packages to their customers.

Ours did that last year. Since chocolate is actually toxic in large quantities to dogs we almost lost her that year. She was critically ill for 5 days.

Perhaps it’s also like saying that the entire internet should pay a tax because some sites use copyrighted media.

It’s as pointless as trying to explain to my dog why she can’t eat chocolate.

Well, it’s not that she CAN’T.
It’s just that she SHOULDN’T.

But, seriously, there’s been a great deal of discussion this year on the Internet about these collection societies (not just SoundExchange). Surely, some links can be dug up.

(Yes, I’m gonna look, too!)

Probably because you’ve already shown that you will simply dismiss any proof provided out of hand like you did with Bill’s link above. You won’t accept any proof shown, regardless of source or content. Proof doesn’t matter to you, what you want to sell us does. If anyone else wants to show you more links, they will, there are plenty out there. I think most feel as I do .. what’s the point ? You can’t see what’s already in front of you because you’re too busy looking at your own hands.

It’s as pointless as trying to explain to my dog why she can’t eat chocolate.

@Crosbie Fitch How am “I” persuading you that their is no difference? Huh? Confused.com It’s a fact that once a recording is ‘copied’ all the rest of the copies made after that are indeed ‘copies’. No persuasion necessary.

On the topic of societies and royalties, it is necessary that you remember that some of us are composers and songwriters who work and write songs which they may not perform or sing themselves. Some of you are talking about selling ‘recordings’, other’s talk about making ‘copies’, other’s talk about music being ‘free’.
http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/

Why do you want to suggest that I am using art, copies, and ‘rights’ interchangeably when in nearly every comment I make I have to take pains to point out to you the fundamental difference between them?

And then you start trying to persuade me that there’s no difference?