[mullingitover]

> But the problem is that royalty rates are decided by law, rather than by negotiation between interested parties. This isn't a market economy, this is a planned economy.

Those are the breaks. Copyright itself isn't a market economy, it's a "temporary" monopoly that's granted by the people and it comes with stipulations. The royalty rates perhaps aren't what the content creators would like them to be, but complaining about that when the term lengths for copyright are so outrageously generous just smacks of greed. For most working people, you get paid for your work once, and not for the rest of your life plus an additional 70 years.

[klodolph]

> The royalty rates perhaps aren't what the content creators would like them to be, but complaining about that when the term lengths for copyright are so outrageously generous just smacks of greed. For most working people, you get paid for your work once, and not for the rest of your life plus an additional 70 years.

This is a non-sequitur. "Musicians are paid royalties for the rest of their life plus 70 years, therefore they should not complain about how large the royalties are." Obviously if our top musicians earned $10 over a 120 year period they would rightly complain about wages. Also obvious is that a $2 million per year royalty due for a song whose composers died nearly 100 years ago is excessive and wrong.

What is not clear is how to pay musicians. Since you seem to care about this problem, suggest something.

[mullingitover]

I don't have the answers. I'm just pointing out that writing, recording, and selling music doesn't entitle one to profits, and if you're in a saturated market like the music business you should expect that you're probably going to fail in your business ventures there unless you're in the top 0.1%. Perhaps the answer is for musicians to lower their expectations about making a business out of their art, because even with the system working as designed most of them already operate at a net loss.