> The people making the art, should be paid the most.
Why? There's a fair market value for the art. There's also a fair real world cost* for distributing and advertising, set by the market (the people working those positions need to eat too). It's trivially easy to go negative, if you try to market something that isn't popular.
If it weren't a net benefit for the artist, they wouldn't go under a label, or stream on a certain platform. They're not being forced to. They do it because it results in more money in their pocket.
>There's a fair market value for the art
Fair ain't got nothing to do with it. Markets don't give a shit about 'fair'.
Fair from the perspective of the person doing the work. I'm using the dictionary definition of "fair" here: A fair exchange is an interaction or agreement where both parties feel they are receiving something of equal value for what they give, resulting in satisfaction and balance rather than resentment or guilt. I'm not using the "living wage" definition, which is a phrase that's not related to the definition of the individual words that it uses.
If they didn't find the compensation fair, for their effort, they wouldn't do the work, and would do something else instead. You want to see positions that that are at the boundary of "fair"? They have incredibly high turnover rates, because people think "this isn't worth it" and quit. Where I am, fast food is a great example of this, where the companies weren't paying wages people wanted to work for, leading to unsustainable turnover, labor shortages, then pay increases.
Too true. For clarification, unhinged "free market" is how you end up with capitalism, try the the same with the "fair market" you get communism.
With unhinged free market you get monopolists and no free market.
With streaming, distribution costs are effectively zero. There is marketing but only up front. Nobody’s marketing 1970s rock bands anymore but they still get a lot of listens.
> They do it because it results in more money in their pocket.
more than zero can still be too little money in exchange for the labor provided and the profit produced.
If the value that others get from it is not worth the effort that someone puts into making it, then we say it's unsustainable. You can't make people give you money, to cover the cost of something they don't want. And, that goes for the entire chain of human effort that is from the artist to the listener.
There's a team that maintains the internet connection so the author can upload. * maintains a storage array/metadata catalog to hold the song. * creates the algorithm to recommend the music to people. * creates ads to recommend the service to people. * ...etc
If any part of this chain finds their effort not worth the value they receive, the whole chain stops. The point before it stops is the market value of that service. Someone charges more than the market value? Then someone else, who finds the effort worth the cheaper pay, will do it (ok, besides monopolies that have captured the government, but they're not really relevant in this case).
If you think it's possible to do what you want, then put the effort into starting a service! You don't want to? Well, nobody else does either, because what they get in return will not be worth the effort.
We live in a society.
and yet, artists are paid fractions of pennies for the privilege of allowing their music to be streamed while streaming company owners make millions and millions of dollars and put that money into machines that kill children. some society.
Or, the reality is that everyone in the chain of effort wants, and deserves, a bit of money in their pocket, for their efforts. If that chain means nothing comes out the other end, it doesn't mean there's a problem with society, it means that the tech isn't there yet to make the chain shorter/cheaper. I'll leave that advancement to you! You can do the right thing, the thing nobody else wants to do, and make the service that solves this issue. As others have said, distribution costs are near zero, so, it must be easy!