[pfarrell]

It's an interesting thought. I'll counter with this point: Just because a song makes $10M, doesn't mean the authors see any of it. I am reminded to the story of "Mbube" aka "Wimoweh" aka "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" where Solomon Linda, the musician who created the famous melody died penniless while it is estimated he and his estate should have earned over $15M in royalties.

https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/in-the-jungle-inside-th...

[cwkoss]

How does that counter my point? If anything, I'd say that supports the cap, as the cap is unlikely to hurt artists - it would mostly hurt industry predators. And less money in predators pockets reduces the funds they have available for legal strong-arming.

[pfarrell]

You're right. It doesn't counter your point. I was thinking it colors it. A limit might discourage predators from taking advantage of artists, or it could intensify the situation into more of a zero-sum game that encourages more predation. It's certainly an interesting thought. I'd say, even without the limit, the default position is for creators to get taken. As an aside, I've had an essay brewing in my mind for years about the corollaries between the software VC environment, startups, bands, labels, and such. I think it's time I attempted to write it.

[cwkoss]

Sounds like an interesting essay :D