> should be paid for their services at their standard rates at the time the service is performed
Because by and large they don't want that. They are creatives who would prefer to be invested in their work: Charge less now, putting more into their work in the hope and belief that it will pay off over time. Sometimes it does.
Part of what's wrong with the industry. Steve Albini had a flat fee and was one of the most sought after recording engineers (aka producer but he hated the term). And that was based on the quality of his work moreso than his modest, flat fee.
A producer is not remotely the same thing as a recording engineer?
He usually did the job of a producer but he didn't like the term, as he wanted the artist to get all of the credit for creating the art, even through the producer often plays a big role in the final product.
Producers also often contribute singing, instrument playing, and songwriting, so the distinction between them and the "artist" is pretty flimsy. In ways, artist is as much defined as "the person that gets all of the credit for creating the art" as anything else.
This is still rent seeking behavior in an industry that pivoted from a live services and paid ownership model.
Nothing wrong with rent-seeking when you actually offer something people want, it's optional, and you don't force them with bait-and-switch (all of which are cases of the bad rent-seeking).
Renting a house is rent-seeking too, for example.
Switching Adobe to a subscription service, on the other hand...
I don't think you can call it rent seeking when it's both completely nonessential and 100% the fruit of their labors. If anything, Spotify is rent-seeking.
how is that rent-seeking?
they actually contribute to the song.