This Red Herring article is interesting in that Mr. Bronfman actually has a point (other than the one at the top of his head.) Radio has paid for all of its content other than music - Howard Stern being the poster boy.

If the model of Jukebox in the Sky is to work, just how does radio expect music to be compensated? My take on the Jukebox theory is that consumers will pay a reasonable monthly fee to the distributor, who will in turn pay the content providers.

This does not mean that the labels should automatically be the gatekeepers for the artists, but somehow, funds need to stream back to composers, performers, and master owners - the ones who have invested time, effort, money and heart.

Radio's virtually free ride is virtually over. Now that radio delivers digital quality tracks (and PVRs, or is that PMRs?) it is hard to argue that a performance fee covers it all.

We are just down the road from on-demand streaming, and when that day comes, physical ownership of recorded music becomes irrelevant at best, onerous, tiresome, and a waste of space being more often the case. On that day, without fair fees being paid for use, just how are musicians supposed to eat?

I remain a vocal advocate of the play live/get paid model, and I still maintain that will be the artists' primary revenue stream. Nonetheless, to the extent that money is already changing hands, let's make sure that the right palms get crossed.

Yeah, yeah - radio should be free. But it's not. So why should radio keep all the money?