“However your argument was threatening venues not the artists.”

Artists use those venues to perform, make money, and gain the necessary recognition to make their money. If the venues stop hosting artists due to these threats then the artists suffer to.

“And as much as they can bark and threaten, defendants can always up the ante by showing lack of contract, suing for attorney fees and fines based on frivolous lawsuit if they actually press lawsuit without standing.”

That’s part of the problem. The law needs to make it easier to collect these attorney fees in these situations. The law places the burden on the venue holder to show that the lawsuit was frivolous. The venue holder can only sue for actual damages proved, whereas the copy privilege holder can often sue for a huge sum of speculated damages. The law needs to place steeper punitive damages against such frivolous lawsuit attempts and it needs to make it easier to collect damages.

“For musicians its a matter of knowing what you’re getting into before you sign up. There are lawyers who help independent artists pro bono or set up conferences to keep musicians informed of their rights.”

I don’t see how that’s relevant here. If a restaurant owner doesn’t want to host musicians because the restaurant owner is faced with tons of potential lawsuits if s/he does, then the musicians are losing out on many opportunities to gain recognition as a result. Our legal system does this to them on purpose because it wants to ensure that musicians must go through monopoly channels to gain recognition.

“Your entire premise is that if someone didn’t actually operate and maintain this distribution channel then everything is fine.”

I never said that no should operate and maintain such distribution channels, just that the government shouldn’t monopolize such distribution channels into the hands of private corporations.

“Labels can still offer an advantage because they have an infrastructure already in place and they already have connections with a talent pool, venues and a good crew. There are negative aspects for sure, but to say it would never be useful is a misleading.”

Part of the infrastructure they have in place uses the government to wrongfully block competitors from various distribution channels to distribute content on. A system that uses the government to block people from broadcasting on public airwaves and then broadcasts someones works on public airwaves (in return for the exclusive privileges over those works) does no one any favors. Sure, the monopoly is useful to the monopolist, but that’s a given.

“The important thing is to be aware of what your getting into before you get into both.”

How does knowledge of what an artist is getting into before going through govt imposed monopoly gatekeepers to get their works distributed justify the existence of those government imposed broadcasting (and information distribution) monopolies? It doesn’t.

“Preserving law enforcement frequencies, air traffic control frequencies, and other public service frequencies is entirely selfish then I take it.”

First of all, I don’t have to disagree with every law to disagree with some. I can disagree with laws that monopolize water use without disagreeing with traffic laws. Your faulty argument assumes otherwise.

Secondly, laws that serve the public good are good. Laws that hand over (or sell) public airwaves over to private entities for their private benefit do not serve the public good. Laws that monopolize cableco infrastructure use into the hands of private entities are not good.

“Problem is there is actually a limited amount of radio frequencies for a given area and I really doubt state or federal government wants to see them used for criminal purposes or to conduct fraud.”

Hammers can be used to conduct murder. Lets ban hammers.

“So, yes there is a reason to require a license to these airwaves.”

That reason is to serve corporate interests. There is not a good reason.

“They can’t take away a right you never had.”

and what gives them the right to prevent me from broadcasting on public airwaves? Their military power?

My right to broadcast exists outside of government. Governments don’t exist in nature. My right to broadcast is a natural right. I am as equally entitled to broadcast as I please as anyone else. What gives them the right to prevent me from broadcasting as I please, their military power? Just because the government, the FCC, has the military power to force their nefarious will on me gives them absolutely no right to do so. They may have the power but they don’t have the right. These monopolists act as if God created these monopolists with more rights than the rest of us, as if they are somehow superior and entitled to more rights than the rest of us just because they said so and that their military power gives them such entitlement. They not only take our money from taxpayers, they then use that money to take away our rights and fund the necessary police power to do so.

“Unless you’ve been approved and granted a broadcasting license, you never had the right.”

Public airwaves rightfully belong to the people. We delegate our right to manage those airwaves to the government because we expect them to act in the public interest. They are clearly not acting in the public interest with their privileges. Hence I’m protesting, to encourage voters to vote for a government that will act in the public interest.

“I think you’re confusing copyright with broadcasting licenses. The rights and requirements of one are completely different from the other. The duration of copyright has nothing to do with broadcasting licenses.”

I’m not confusing the two, I’m merely pointing out that the underlying reason behind both of them is corrupt in nature.