The main problem is equipment requirements (transmission watts limits is one of them) and multiple signal "overlapping" in the same frequency.
If some sort of central organization was started with local offices all over and proper radio equipment, then we could make that happen. That way we could also make sure that the same frequency is not used by several broadcasters in the same area.
I can imagine that a lot of people would want to link that with internet radio streams, so people who would want to broadcast things would set up audio streaming software (that's actually really easy!) and let the "radio offices" of choice "replay"/"forward" it to actual radio waves (broadcast).
Make some more noise! Spread the word! Make people understand that this NEVER was about "helping artists making a living", just control! Keep making free music and make people understand that they have a choice!
That's one badass DRM scheme that's needed for that.
"We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more."
School plays, singing in the bathroom, humming, whatever. Should they be included too?
That piracy bit needs evidence, since there's no proof yet (don't think there ever will be) that it causes any loss of income for anybody but the big company CEOs.
"We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights."
The rest of us has the right to advocate for fair laws.
"We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us"
Sounds like you have no choice with BMI and those two others.
And about the right to a share in the profit, does that mean percentages? How would that be calculated? Why not just stick to fees?
"when so many forces are seeking to [...] devalue artistic expression"
On the contrary. We want to increase the value of artistic expressions. We just don't want to value it in money and lock it down.
The rest are mostly straw men arguments that I could recite as a defence for my own views.
What valuable function do they provide by charging money from small shops that only have live bands that play their own original music and then pass that money on to the current TV/Radio Top 100 artists? How does that help society?
What excuse is it that the minimum costs are relatively small?
So the option is in between having less shared ideas or a minefield? Then I pick less shared ideas, thanks.
Uhm, wait... Well, in *your* business, maybe. I'm running Ubuntu here with 100% free software with all source code available.
If an idea is patented, the patentee should make sure everybody knows. The GIF case, where the company let everybody use it for free until the patent was granted, is a clear demonstration that patents suck.
The free PNG format was actually created because of the GIF patents. And with the fresh aPNG:s (Animated Portable Networks Graphics, supported by Firefox since 3.5), they now beat GIF:s in ALL regards.
Many of the best ideas WOULD be shared, many of them for honor (like in matematics and with the Nobel prize).
"If you know the solution, contact the newspaper industry because you will be a well-paid consultant. The problem will soon be this: If newspapers decide they can't afford beat writers, where will that information come from? Somebody has to get on the plane, go to Toronto and ask the questions."
Nobody has to get on the plane if you have people there from the begging. Like websites have with their large communities that are spread around the world.
Want news from Sweden? Ask me and I'll get you some.
1. By reading this or being replied to by me all your rights are transferred to me.
2. I own the priviligie to interpret this EULA in case something is unclear.
3. This is unclear.
4. I've got no responsibilities.