Hey, relax guys.. It's only a 'proffered' suggestion. I don't really have a strong opinion, but I do find myself leaning one way. As an amateur (one who creates music for love of music), I realize that the paradigm for compensation that I describe would create all kinds of additional chaos in the system, but honestly, it's a system I have little respect for. Where musicians are pawns who owe their souls to the Majors, and have been for longer than people care to admit, where who's rise to the top is has been largely decided by A&R, and where what people are fed on the radio is decided by the same. It makes it easier for me to be cynical because a large majority of the music is formulaically created and dispensed crap.
Yes, I don't feed my family by writing songs, but I did struggle as an under-employed musician for many years. I didn't like the game then, so why should I like it now. The idea that you own the 'sound' is a relatively new one and it does present some awkward problems, but technology is going to force the issue on this one. It's already happening; there's no way to stop it. There are too many people out there who can make good music (often much better than what the mainstream cookie-cutter industry creates) who will be able to make a living independent of the system by giving their music away. Napster may have created the expectation, but musicians are beginning to embrace it philosophically. Not to mention musicians (like me) who are able to create reasonably high-quality music in their homes that couldn't be dreamed of 30 years ago.
Might I think differently if I was at the top of the food chain? I dunno, but I would surely recognize that being at the top doesn't mean you are the best (in fact, given that you played the game it might even suggest otherwise) and that, even if I worked my butt off to get there, was still damn lucky. In fact, given the stat of the the industry, if I was making scads of money, I better be feeling guilty.
Luckily, I don't give too much thought to this whole fiasco - because I don't have to. You guys do bring up a number good arguments for sure. What's the difference between a live performance at the local bar, and a movie? I think the difference is obvious. For one, the ability to enforce laws regarding the making and dissemination of movies is much greater. Is there a continuum of venues that could be disputed fraught with slippery slopes? Absolutely. Should people who claim to be "amateurs" be able to make budget movies and be exempt? I dunno. But the nature of mechanical rights is changing, and the notion that certain jobs/functions are sacrosanct just so people can put food on the table is harmful in the end. The 'job' of song-writer looks to be suspect. Why is that a bad thing? Did Beethoven or Mozart receive any money when their music was played elsewhere? I don't know, but I suspect not. Who would enforce such a crazy idea? They made money on the road, performing, conducting, etc. Eventually publishing became affordable and people bought sheet music and the music became theirs to perform anywhere and for any reason. Physical records and tapes supplanted that. I never bought sheet music. I lifted it right off the album. Ripping and sharing is just way too easy now; there's no way to control dissemination of music. Boom - done. And there you have it, the rise and fall of the songwriter. if this was TL;DNR, then the short answer to the question..
uhmm,, >>Googles Anachronism<< ..probably.