Sing for your supper

..as a footnote to the previous post.

The main argument put forward for copyright extension from the musicians and the music industry is that it will provide income for less well known artists and session musicians when they get to pensionable age.

While it's probably true that as a pensioner it's nice to get a little extra at the end of the month I have to say that anyone that's worked from age 20 to age 65 ought to be expected to have made some provision for their retirement during that time. To say that an individual is dependant on the creative work they did when they were twenty is simply put, sad - and copyright income from their thirties, forties and fifties will continue to roll in over several decades of retirement.. . And to say that they will still be dependant on that income when they get to be 115 is absurd.
(There are a great many innovative and creative people in many walks of life that get paid by the hour for their talents... the ability to get paid many times over after the event is a rare privilege!)

Artists - the one's that aren't just doing it because it's fun or cool - make records to get rich now. They want to become famous and they want their song to be public property - played everywhere on the radio, in bars and in clubs. So, now you've had 50 years of living off your five minutes of stardom... Book closed.

Unless of course you consider that for fifty years record companies have been cutting deals with musicians that don't make adequate provision for their future pension requirements. That you might consider exploitative on the part of the record company - and somewhat short sighted on the part of the artists.... but surely that's something they ought to sort out amongst themselves??