The music industry says otherwise. The music industry will show you historically how on air radio cut into music sales from the 1930s on. That’s why they took radio stations to court back then to prevent them from playing music on air. The only reason recorded music gets played today is because the music industry lost those cases in court.
You refuted your own point. The music industry lost those cases in court. In other words, they didn't prove their contention. History has shown that the music industry grew exponentially and new artists were created because of exposure on the radio. The number of musicians paid by radio stations decreased when recording were allowed on the air, but the overall number of musicians grew because more artists were exposed to more people.
The several legal issues of the 40's which resulted in the ability to operate a music stations were first the breaking of the ASCAP monopoly in collecting performance rights. With the establishment of BMI and the unlocking of ASCAP's stranglehold on public performance, the first step was taken.
Then, with the fall of the power of the American Federation of Musicians and the indictment of Joe Petrillo, its mob-style boss, stations could play recorded music without having to "compensate" with a corresponding number of hours of live music by the station band.
No sooner had the AFM matter been concluded than we suddenly had independents like KLIF playing lots of recorded music, albeit in the block programming model of the era. But very soon we had Top 40 rising out of Omaha to take the nation by storm.
But the root issue was performance royalties. Radio paid, and still does not pay an artist royalty for analog transmissions; it pays a burdensome rate for digital streaming transmissions.
So the issue is not about hosted or personalized or local or national, it is about digital and analog. The record industry, an historic stifler of progress, sees digital as a way of giving every consumer a master copy of a recording, and wants to charge accordingly. They don't understand that making music accessible and affordable are the requirements for reducing piracy, not putting DRM controls on physical media and making it hard to use and hear music.
But, to return to the subject area this thread is dealing with, the whole rights thing is about digital vs. analog. It's questionable whether digital performance royalties leave a margin for profit in radio and among pure-plays as well. The CC thinking has to be along the lines of trading a bit of the previously non-royalty-subject analog part for a lower rate on digital. Since analog is fading, and digital growing, there is obviously a tipping point in the near future where sacrificing the old (cash) cow will benefit the rest of the herd in the future.
Introducing things like "you don't recognize the contributions of talent..." into an area that is purely a digital vs. analog issue may satisfy your localism (whatever that is today) and local talent (assuming anyone cares anymore) agenda, but does not respond to the digital vs. analog issue.