I do support ASCAP persuing action against those who violate the purposes of ASCAP, but I don't support generically going after those who wish to promote alternative methods of licensing their music. It should be the choice of the creator. I will look into purposes of the action further, and will not support it if it goes against what I stated in my previous posts, as to the purposes of ASCAP.
MySpace, by the way, does pay songwriter royalties (as well as sales royalties), and so do many online "radio stations". The MySpace licensing happened within the last 6 months or so, as I understand it.

Here is the note that the members recieved about the action:

"Dear (member),

"On behalf of songwriters and composers everywhere, I am urging you to support ASCAP's Legislative Fund for the Arts (ALFA).

"At this moment, we are facing our biggest challenge ever. Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Copyleft" in order to undermine our "Copyright." They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.

"This is why your help now is vital. We fear that our opponents are influencing Congress against the interests of music creators. If their views are allowed to gain strength, music creators will find it harder and harder to make a living as traditional media shifts to online and wireless services. We all know what will happen next: the music will dry up, and the ultimate loser will be the music consumer.

"We cannot afford to lose the support of our legislators either at this time or into the future. To this end, we must urge the members of Congress to support our rights.

"Of course, a legislative campaign of this magnitude requires funds. We are coming to you--along with many other professional ASCAP members-- to help protect your future. Of course, we understand that these are tough times for everyone. Accordingly, we are asking you to make a very small contribution to wage this battle. Our thinking is that if everyone we are approaching responds with the modest sum we are requesting, it will add up to a reasonable result. In line with this, we are requesting that you write a personal check for five dollars ($5.00) or more made out to the ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts. If your contribution is greater than $200, federal law requires that you provide the necessary information requested on the attached form. Please send any checks to ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts, (address omitted). Please note that corporate checks are not permissible.

"You can also charge the amount to your credit card, if you prefer, by clicking on the following link: (link omitted)

"Think of it as investing in your own future----which is precisely what it is. We will use the funds to advance our agenda in Washington on your behalf. Please read and complete the information requested on the attached form, and say "yes" to helping us help you safeguard your rights and your future income."
(signature omitted)

"Please use more than one paragraph next time."

Sorry, my commenting is a bit rare, so I don't quite have the HTML all down-pat yet. I'll try harder on keeping on top of it, such as on this reply.
Thanks!

True, the EFF, Creative Commons (Copyleft), don't host songs, but some of their users use music in their creations, be it games, software, etc. And while selling a game, or software, etc, isn't what ASCAP is for, the playing of the song during an online game, for example, would be considered airplay, and ASCAP will attempt to collect royalties for the writers on that point. I will tell you, that, being a member of ASCAP, that I have songs registered with ASCAP, as well as other songs out under Creative Commons licenses. What I do with them is my right, as the creator of the songs, and to me depends on what I'd like to see done with the songs. And, if I decide that some should be public domain, then that is my right as well. Also, if I wish to license a song to an artist for free, that is my right, too. I get to decide, depending on circumstance. But, if that song that is licensed for free to an artist, gets airplay, I'm already compensated by those broadcasters who pay the ASCAP fees. BMI and SESAC are also songwriter/composer/publisher rights outfits like ASCAP. I do not advocate going after the EFF or Creative Commons or Copyleft movements for producing said plagiarized materiels, but rather encourage them to cooperate in the instances of assisting ASCAP in finding those who are in violation of the rights of the creator of the song/music. I do not advocate anyone doing what the RIAA and MPAA are doing. If, indeed, ASCAP ends up pulling an RIAA or MPAA, and starts suing content downloaders, it isn't what ASCAP is all about, and they won't have my support in that area. I will retain support, however, for the reasons ASCAP exists for the writers. From the inside, this action that is being taken is a separate venture that is asking members if they want to donate to that cause. If the member doesn't donate or show support, then that is an internal "no" vote on the matter by the member. By the way, I'm also a member of deviantArt, and have works there under full copyright and others under Creative Commons licenses per the way you mentioned in your reply.

You (generic address) are mistaken to put ASCAP in the same category as the RIAA and the MPAA, as ASCAP isn't going after the file-sharing-type of piracy. ASCAP is a songwriter/composer/publisher organization that collects royalties for the songwriter/composer/publisher of a song when it has airplay or other similar usage. Every time you hear a song on the radio, or in a broadcasted movie, or commercial that you see, the broadcaster is paying royalties on the song. Technically, the broadcaster is licensed, and the fees they pay are divied-up between the number of times the song is played, but where the royalties go to the songwriter/composer/publisher of said song. They have nothing to do with collecting sales royalties for a band that has a tune recorded. What ASCAP is going-after, are those who might take a song and publish it as their own, assisting the copyrights of the songwriter/composer/publisher of the song. Same as if you posted a picture that you created, and someone else posted it as their own. If a band wished to record a song written by another songwriter, this is called licensing, and goes through a different process outside ASCAP. ASCAP royalties are entirely different than what the RIAA and MPAA do. By going after the Creative Commons, ASCAP is going after the persons who might publish a song as their own, that is really a copyright violation, where the person uses the Creative Commons (copyleft) to attempt to bypass the copyright of the work, and thus virally screwing the real-writer out of licensing agreements with those who wish to perform/record/use their songs (as listed above). If a songwriter/composer/publisher wish to put their works on a Creative Commons type of license, it is their right to do so, and are not the ones that ASCAP is going after. In such cases, the original songwriter still owns the copyright on the song, whichever way they choose to license their songs. What ASCAP wants, is for Creative Commons, ELF, Copyleft, to do the same thing that other websites are already doing, by looking at songs that someone wrote, or composed, or legally published, that someone else had taken and posted it as their own work, such as plagiarism, and not at all like one downloading mp3s. I hope this clears up the misconceptions about what is being attempted by ASCAP, as opposed to the dealings of RIAA and MPAA. Yep, I'm a member of ASCAP, and cannot stand the RIAA or the MPAA!