So why should "work" done 5 years ago, or 10, or 20 be buying anything today?
Because that's how they decided to sell it. Instead of putting it on a shelf with a price of $500,000, they make copies, sold at a low price, and keep a portion of that. Yes, it is possible to make more money this way. It is equally possible for the well to run dry long before the comparable value is achieved. It's a high risk game that does not pay out all that well for most people.
This is in stark contrast to the reality the vast majority of people: we work, get paid for it and have to work again to get paid again.
The difference being that you get paid for showing up, and you don't receive your payment as part of a collective process from thousands or millions of users.
It's not up to you to determine how artists choose to sell the work they create. Your honor or respect for their choice is irrelevant. It is their work. If you want access to it, you play by their rules.
I hate to correct you Matticus as you are one of the most informed posters on this site, but;
Mechanical royalties have nothing to do with band performances (performance royalty) or radio (performance royalty).
Mechanicals are for the mechanical reproduction of the underlying work only.
I appreciate the attempt, but it's not true. The mechanical royalty is a compulsory license owed for the reproduction of a work that has been fixed and previously published by the author. It is the royalty paid by cover bands and the license in question here for distribution of sound recordings containing the musical work. The mechanical royalty is so named because it permits the distributions of lawful recordings (putting the work to a recorded medium by machine) of the underlying work by individuals other than the author of the work, through, as mentioned, covers and through re-mastering for digital distribution. The mechanical royalty is owed by
anyone who is recording or distributing a work to which they do not own the musical copyright. See 17 USC 115. "Digital phonorecord delivery" includes Internet radio.
"Mechanical reproduction of the underlying work" is a nonsensical construction, and I'm not sure from where you draw references to the recording artists or the studio producers--this is a royalty owed to the musical copyright owner. When you record a cover version, you do not owe royalties to the sound recording copyright owner, and you do not owe royalties to the original performers. You owe royalties only to the songwriter(s). 9.1 cents per song or 1.75 cents per minute, to be exact. They don't have the authority to stop you from recording a cover.
"Reproduction of the underlying work" is e.g., sheet music, lyrics, guitar tabs. The issue here is the mechanical
recording and/or
distribution of musical works not owned by the party doing the recording; be it Apple or your local Styx cover band. Again, 17 USC 115(a)(1)(i) presumes a lawful sound recording being prepared for distribution, which is where the record labels come into play with iTunes, because Apple is not preparing new recordings, but rather a master use license for the sound recordings already made by the labels. Apple cannot use those sound recordings without negotiating permission; once Apple has the label's permission, they
can sell without the songwriter's permission, thanks to the compulsory license, so long as they pay the 9.1 cents.
But what about the artists NOT represented by this group and not applied to by their practice.
There aren't any, in effect. If NMPA's request is granted, the royalty rate will affect
all songwriters, whether they are affiliated with NMPA or not and whether they use HFA as a clearinghouse or not. The royalty rate set by CRJ is the
law. No one is excluded unless they, as a copyright holder, voluntarily agree to to lower royalty rates in a contract with a specific licensee.