> Once the music is recorded, they aren't 'working' anymore hours, so how would you figure they need $1160 a month to make minimum wage? I completely agree. Th

> Once the music is recorded, they aren't 'working' anymore hours, so how would you figure they need $1160 a month to make minimum wage? I completely agree. The minimum wage figure was just a reference point that aligns with the way we pay for it: monthly. It's ridiculous music has (been) moved into this area. The same problem is in the software industry now. More and more companies move to subscription business models simply because a pay-upfront model isn't viable anymore. Sure, it's great to support developers in their endeavours, but what if I just want to buy this exact version of the app and decide for myself if I want to pay for bug fixes and extra features later? Maybe this version is fine for me. But the new business reality doesn't allow for this. Anyways.. > No other job expects to be paid forever for work done years ago; if someone hires me to build a fence, I don't expect to keep being paid for every year that fence is up. The entire intellectual property licensing space works in this way, and that space is badly broken. I agree that there's no moral requirement to pay someone for work done years ago, and the reality is that most musicians really aren't. A quality recording takes a long time to make and its average lifespan is about a year (if that) before attention (if any) dies out. On top of that it requires a big investment to record, produce and promote an album (consider also a new website, logo and album art) and then after all you have to share the $0.00029 per song play with about five people and the label. You're lucky to break even at all.