I don't see why someone should get to live a lifetime on their creative output. My goal is to make it harder to do that. There is no reason someone should be able to make one hit song and then never work again.
> There is no reason someone should be able to make one hit song and then never work again.
It makes people want to do it, hence providing the incentive for more creation. Frankly, if someone writes a good song then I'm happy they'll do well off it, we need more good songs and that song will last a lifetime for the listeners too.
This is red herring. I doubt you could find a single musician who would tell you that they wouldn't be creating if they don't get a lifetime to exploit the work. Further, you can see proof of this through history. Copyright used to be much shorter and people still created.
Most people who create, especially people who make good music, do it because they love it, not because they will get to exploit it.
Art must be distributed to be appreciated. There will be demand for it: customers, each furiously waving their cash offer.
Someone is going to render that art for consumption in exchange for that cash. My conviction is the artist should have right of first refusal to grow rich with that cash. I confess this conviction is a moral conviction, driven by a sense of fairness, not efficiency. “The suckers compulsively produce it for free,” doesn’t find much purchase with me.
Why not? If the song is that good.
Our put it another way, of person A makes an awesome song, why should person B make a bunch of money off of it 50 years later?
It makes people want to do it, hence providing the incentive for more creation. Frankly, if someone writes a good song then I'm happy they'll do well off it, we need more good songs and that song will last a lifetime for the listeners too.