You analogies are not correct. The copyright is right to copy and
redistribute. I believe the audience should always be allowed to record a
live performance and redistribute it.
Watching a record is nothing like the live performance... and that is why and
how many artists make a living. The rest of the artists are paid upfront or
are employed and do not get any royalties (certainly the case of the
info-graphist, actors, musicians, ... in video games). And, yes, there is the
1% (.1%?) of superstars that make millions with the copyright law. But the
main beneficiaries are, by far, not artists. They are wearing ties in the
offices of Universal, Warner, Sony, Disney, etc.
Less than two weeks ago,
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2015/08/23/magazine/how-artists-are-making-a-better-living-in-the-internet-age/s/culture-digital-economy-slide-VB5P.html
was writing about more and more artists make a living. In all the Arts.
Thanks to Internet and our copying machines we call computers. At the same
time, I am prone to believe that our superstars and executives in ties have
trouble renewing their private jets. I do not care.
