[hn_throwaway_99]

> If young artists cannot sign away their rights to the songs they create they won't get funded in the first place.

Bullshit. We are perfectly fine accepting all sorts of contact limitations in other areas. How many times have I heard on this site that people wish all states were like California in making non-competes unenforceable. And yet engineers still manage to get hired there.

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to amend performance contract law to state that artists who actually wrote songs should always be allowed to perform them, even if someone else owns the "rights". Heck, even put in some reasonable royalty payment that the "rights owner" must be paid if the original performer performs her songs, but don't allow an outright ban on performing them.

The "rights owners" would still have full control over ability to use that music in other areas, and by other artists, commercials, political rallies, etc.

[orev]

Supply and demand.

There are a limited number of engineers and the companies who need them actually have to fill those roles in a reasonable amount of time to be able to get things done and stay competitive. This puts pressure on the companies to make the contracts more equal.

There are an (effectively) infinite number of young musicians dying for the chance to “make it big”, and the music companies don’t have the same kind of pressure to constantly have to keep filling seats to get work done. They can take their time and pick and choose however they want. This allows them to write the contracts more in their favor.