To my point - it's irrelevant anyways. Streaming services exist, so there's not much point in pontificating about the economics of them not existing.

1. Streaming services are reducing artist's "net revenue" because their mere existence has supplanted how people traditionally purchase music. Therefore, album and song sales are down, but at the same time, artists are not compensated sufficiently through these new streaming services, which have superseded the old…

I can respect that your views in this subject are shaped with being around the Amish everyday. That is certainly going to lend itself to a unique perspective.

If streaming services are taken out of the equation - 1) More people would illegally download music; 2) Significantly more people would just buy music; 3) People would probably listen to less music in general (or at least fewer bands/individuals), but not to a significant extent. Bottom line, I'm assuming album sales…

My argument is they should share in more of that revenue, as you state, and that those streaming services (as payment is currently constructed) are killing musicians. Also, I thought it was pretty clear I was using killing in the sense that it was ripping them off, not literally ending their careers.

It's fairly simple. Athletes and Musicians both have unique talents that make money for people who own their work that lack those talents. Athletes, in every major sports league, are compensated based off of ticket sales (akin to live performance) and based off of television revenue/merchandising/all other revenue…

Record companies and internet streaming services fucking over composers isn't mutually exclusive, you know? It is possible to negotiate for higher licensing fees for composers without that going directly to record company pockets.

*hear. Sorry, typing fast

Because cultures evolve. At the time of "free and local round the fire participating in our culture" there was no television, radio, internet, etc…

It is somewhere in between. It is artificially restricting the true amount of revenue and income that they should be making. As far as long-term, there will continue to be fewer and fewer people who actually purchase music (as we die out) - so in essence - there is a greater likelihood that it will be significantly…

You're creating straw-man arguments. No one is advocating that these services shouldn't exist. They should just pay fair compensation for the licenses and not coerced licenses by the department of justice for basically nothing. The internet has been huge for independent artists, but that isn't reason to allow…

Can you cite the document that states that music is a "God given right", because I'm unaware of it? But sure - if you want to listen to music for free - there's plenty of it in the public domain free for your ears.

"Azoff is the former chairman of Live Nation who is now spearheading a new venture, Global Music Rights (GMR), aimed at extracting higher performance rights royalties for songwriters. Traditionally, those rights have been handled by ASCAP and BMI, which have been hamstrung by consent decrees with the Justice…

Are you serious? If streaming services or free content was not available online - those users would have to actually buy the music. It's not hard to chart the steady and sharp decline in record sales with the rise of the internet and streaming services.

What an intelligent reply! And you Grohl worshipers need to stop taking economic lessons from overrated rock stars and political pointers from Rage Against The Machine.

Just shut the fuck up, Dave. Artists and songwriters are getting killed by Spotify, Youtube, Pandora, and any other digital streaming service. It is absolutely fucking moronic to rely on the stupid argument "well, play live, durrrr."

Miley Cyrus / Notorious BIG Party in the USA / Party and Bullshit destroys this.

My Wife sat on the sand and watched me surf once when we first began dating. Now - after nearly 2 years of marriage and almost 6 years together - If I asked her to watch me surf on a Saturday morning, she'd laugh in my fucking face.

Yeah this got into 'The Descendants' territory very quick. Hard to build tension when the answer to any reasonable human being would be sell the fucking place. Their ancestors would have sold the shit out of that place if the value increased roughly 10,000 times from the time of purchase.

I think it has to do with Whitney. Not sure if she is the one who actually killed him (although that is possible), but it directly relates to her.