I really don’t want to make it harder for people to survive on their creative output for their whole careers. But that’s the focus: providing for a family, maybe even fabulously, but for one generation only.
It makes people want to do it, hence providing the incentive for more creation. Frankly, if someone writes a good song then I'm happy they'll do well off it, we need more good songs and that song will last a lifetime for the listeners too.
This is red herring. I doubt you could find a single musician who would tell you that they wouldn't be creating if they don't get a lifetime to exploit the work. Further, you can see proof of this through history. Copyright used to be much shorter and people still created.
Most people who create, especially people who make good music, do it because they love it, not because they will get to exploit it.
Someone is going to render that art for consumption in exchange for that cash. My conviction is the artist should have right of first refusal to grow rich with that cash. I confess this conviction is a moral conviction, driven by a sense of fairness, not efficiency. “The suckers compulsively produce it for free,” doesn’t find much purchase with me.
Do you think they write more or less because they make money from it?
If I shared one song and made money then would the chances of me sharing another increase?