The tangible aspect of a musician’s craft is the album it becomes imprinted on, or the mp3 in which it is encoded. (Also, the labor craft is founded upon “intellectual property” as well, i.e. the methods, procedures, theories, etc., so it is futile to found one’s argument upon an “intellectual” footing solely.) Once it (the musician’s tangible product) is lawfully purchased by an end consumer, the musician has no more right to say who should listen to it and when, than a writer has to say who should read their book and how. A book is a piece of intellectual property, so why do libraries not pay royalties to authors? They purchase the book once, as do you and I, and they loan it to as many people as they deem fit. In addition to that, some libraries offer public readings. That is exactly the same, in fact, it is even more of a violation of the supposed “intellectual property rights” of the author: the library specifically generates its profit through the usage of the books, whereas the businesses you and I have referred to specifically make their profits by selling other products while using the music for aesthetic purposes.

“…[T]hey write in HOPES that their songs become popular, are played in public, and they are THEN paid.” Thank you for further elucidating the point I made in my original post: without the mediums, radio, bars, clubs, etc., the musicians would never sell albums nor ever be booked to perform live. So then, are those mediums not performing a service for the musician? They are indeed performing the service at their own expense, for they had to initially purchase the music, which they are then advertising FOR FREE! Yes, they make profits in the lines of business they are in, but why should they have to pay a musician, twice no less, for the free marketing of their music? If we are to truly speak of fairness and equity, then should we say that the musician, or label, should have to compensate the radio station, bar, club, etc., for making their artists popular enough to enrich themselves as they do?

For what it’s worth, when a song is “covered” on an album, the songwriter makes 9.1 cents per copy of the record sold. (not much, when you consider that the song retails for $1.00 (nowadays on iTunes) or more. In my view, this isn’t much.

Then, when the club owner plays that song for his patrons to dance to, the songwriter should get NOTHING? I don’t agree.
Bottom line is this. Artists who create works like songs own the copyright in those songs, and have the right to control how their work is used. They’re entitled to get paid when their work is used. Period.

If you don’t like it.. .SILENCE IS GOLDEN, but if you want to use music to create an ambience… pay for it… just like everybody else.

Eliminating performance royalties would have the result of taking away the financial incentive for artists to create new works.

The second issue you raise, regarding record companies, is a valid issue as well. To that I say: if an artist would like to take in more of the money, release the record independently. The natural reply to that would be one based upon the capital it would take to reach such a wide audience, and that it makes more sense to go through the label. Well then, is it not right to pay the label for their services: the fronting for studio time, distribution, marketing, etc.? It is a service like any other. The service the artist is paid for is quite correctly the record and performance fees; they are paid for their performance, literally, recorded and live.

Lastly, the bar or club, or any other business for that matter, makes money off of the product(s) it sells. People go to bars and clubs to drink and intermingle, restaurants to eat and drink, car dealers for cars, ikea for furniture, etc.; the aesthetics are most certainly not the principal selling tool. If a club has a nicely installed wooden dance floor, should the constructors of the floor be remunerated every time someone dances on it? Should the the construction company which outfitted the local bar with its bar counters be paid a royalty every time a drink is set down on the counter? Hardly. The business, like any ordinary consumer, purchases the music to be played at its establishment. At that point the artist is compensated for his/her/their work. Asking for any more is extortion: “you pay me money to play my music, which you lawfully purchased from me at a predetermined fee, or else”. I will never be able to reconcile that concept with the ideal of free and just liberty.

Also, when records are sold.. it’s the record companies, not the artists who see most of the money.

Finally, I think that the bar or club that makes money (in part) from playing music to entertain its guests and keep them in the establishment longer, consuming drinks, food, etc., SHOULD compensate the people responsible for making that music. Just like they compensate the farmers who grow the produce they sell as food, and the distilleries that make the liquor they sell. Isn’t the music really one of the “raw materials” that a restaurant, bar, or night club combines with food, drink, etc, to create a satisfying customer experience?

The down economy is no excuse… it hits artists hard too.

Most Artists are “the little guy”, and this is one area of I.P. Law that favors the Artist.