"Espinel suggests the creation of public performance rights for music on the radio, which the US already has for satellite broadcasting and webcasting. But the

"Espinel suggests the creation of public performance rights for music on the radio, which the US already has for satellite broadcasting and webcasting. But the broadcasting lobby has opposed the move ferociously, claiming that its unique exemption from payment is because radio has such promotional force for artists." I'm actually a fan of this portion of it. It brings radio broadcasting in line with the harsh limits put on webcasting. I'd rather it be the opposite - that the limits on webcasting were brought in line with the (lack of) limits on radio broadcasting, but this is a good second best. The broadcasting establishment claims that radio is a huge promotional force for artists; why isn't the opposite true of webcasting (a la Pandora)? It would seem the promotion of artists is /better/ in webcasting, because the webcaster can link the listener directly to where they might purchase the artist's work - unlike in radio, where you must wait for the DJ to (maybe, once in a blue moon) announce what just played, and then have to google it yourself.