Well, this is a big debate. I think musicians must be paid by playing live, amd not when every human listen a song, do a cover, or listen it in a bar. I think artists should be credited and pay when others use their creation for commercial use. Staff, as always, they will have jobs. You think the staff is all day working with the records, no, they do sound work on live shows too, as welll producers, designers, print guys, etc. People evolve.
Okay, so what about artists who are unable to play live for one reason or another (e.g. handicap, musical complexity). Recording engineering is different enough from live sound that it's almost two different jobs. And you're suggesting that the staff who do things like set up microphones and haul speakers should get paid to set that up for a live show but not paid to set that up for a recording?
Then it's easier. You cannot live from something you cannot fully profit. It's a dead model, in this case, for you, but not for the rest. Let's say you're just not a musician but you are a genious at the computer. well, you can still sell your music, but in these days, people may be more open to see you on stage and buying a 20$ CD.
Most of the movies, right now, are sold in the metro station in Barcelona tagged 1-2 dollars. And legal stores, not those slave-labor dudes with the house-made copycated movies. The industry already kills its own artists.
If that is the case, why would any entertainer allow themselves to be recorded? And who would bother to waste the time and money to make the recording? I don't have the time nor desire to go to a concert, yet I enjoy listening to good music. Therefore I pay for it.
If people aren't willing to, nope. This is a slippery slope and we can't afford to pay every employee of dying professions forever.
I think utilities and reasonable physical safety and healthcare should be paid for by the people. But for the rest, the free market will work better than an infinity of laws and incentives to put people in a corner to pay up. Money, uh, finds a way...
The idea behind this comment is that if people don't care enough about the work to bother viewing it, the maker shouldn't be paid. Which I agree with; I hate the idea of government sponsorship of art no one wants. The difference here is, PEOPLE WANT THE ART, THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT. That's a huge distinction. It has value to people, but because they have the opportunity to steal it with no consequence, they do so.
