This is the actual problem, and something that should be properly regulated.

I would hope that the money I paid, after the Spotify cut, went to the artists/labels that own the music I actually listen to, proportionally.

The fact that it goes to some Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga annoys me more than Spotify adding their own slop to slop playlists.

The proper regulation is copyright expiring after 10 years.

The original was 14+14. Given how life expectancy only increased, I fail to see anything lower passing in congress. Not that this is realistic to begin with.

Correct.

I don't see how that does anything but fuck over artists and allow corporations to exploit them even further.

“Artists” are not a monolith. For example, music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it. This reduces spend available for new artists.

Excessive copyright terms go from incentivizing creating art to incentivizing rent seeking. Society also spends a ton more resources litigating disputes and avoiding them.

This seems like an incredible naive way of thinking about how artists should be rewarded for their work.

> music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it

Music streaming services should spend their money on artists their customers are listening to, however old that music happens to be.

> however old

Eh, I don't think there's a very convincing argument that the world is better off paying artists for things that were made more than 50 years ago.

(Yes I know the person above said 10, I think 10 is too aggressive.)

Probably depends on whether or not they’re still alive after whatever arbitrary time period and some other factors, sure