A public payment system means that for music, no one pays royalties for copyrights to, say publishers and other copyright holders or to record companies for digital copies of music and sheet music. That would mean huge savings to the public.

As to radio, television, theater performance, music uses would pay a reasonable amount (as a or tax) to a government fund.

Since the public would save money in front payments the public could not mind to pays some reasonable amount of the savings to (as a tax) to the government fund.

Then government would pay songwriters and performing artists through a visible to the-public, artists and songwriter but yet to be defined system.

I recently had a discussion with a performance rights organization executive about the secrecy as to which songwriter was paid what. The explanation: He said the information was confidential, meaning “we hide it so no knows what we do so no one compares the data and no one asks questions”. This is what we must defeat and an open public system is a possibility to do it. If we trust government for security, for heath, for education why not for music. We certainly don’t trust big business.

In other words, if the labels and promoters refuse to pay everyone, then the PUBLIC should be made to!??

Thanks for playin’
8 0

As to:

“concerns of songwriters, composers and music publishers” it would have been more truthful
“100% of publishers and 1 percent of songwriters and composers”. This is because 99% of songwriters and composers get nothing or almost nothing for the performance of their songs.

Aso to

““Public performance” and “distribution of copies” are two distinct rights granted to copyright owners, providing two separate revenue streams on which they depend for their livelihoods.”

Wrong. Copies as in sheet music are no longer streams of income for 99% of songwriters and composers.
Copies as in records (CD/DVD) are really recorded performances. These are also poor streams of income for songwrites and performance. Well over 99% of songwriters and composers never get a single work performed in a rcording studio in their lifetime. Only the rigtly connected ones
have any success and can make a living from songwriting and composing.

As to

“has spread American culture to the far corners of the globe” why not say the truth, why not rephrase that to “has allowed american publishers to capture the the great music produced in the third world for the benefit of American corporations at almost no cost thus contributing to reduce our cash flow problems.

As to “American culture” and “that has placed America’s music at the pinnacle of world popularitywhy”….sure American pop has spread to the world, where it is ridiculed as being the worst in the world for the last 50 years. Remember RAP.

The incomes that songwriters and composers get can never be called “livelyhood”, unless the purpose is to make fun of these artists or collecting money in the streets and living under a bridge are great ways of making a living and living.

As to

“we must not ignore that an unintended and highly negative by-product of providing faster and greater connectivity could well lead to a significant increase in already rampant Internet piracy.”
Ah, they got it at last…. technology is overtaking copyright protections possible only in the horse and buggy era.
Which means that a new system is required to pay songwrites and composies and that system must not include the bloodsucher scheeming midlemen, the record makes, the music publishers, the broadcastes, teater owners, etc.

A PUBLIC PAYMENT SYSTEM IS THE WAY OUT OF THE ABYSS CREATED BY THE BUSINESS SIDE OF MUSIC.

its gone about that i dont even listen to music anymore due such examples as this.