These things are not unrelated. The author can only sell their rights for a sizeable chunk of money precisely because the big corpo can then milk the profits. You take that away, and suddenly creating valuable "content" doesn't pay.
People were creating art for thousands of years before copyright became perpetual. People were creating art for thousands of years before their art became feasibly monetizable. Hell, people were creating art for thousands of years before the concept of money even existed. I harbor precisely zero concern that shortening copyright to a "mere" 28 years will suddenly cause all human capacity for art to evaporate.
but this is first time authors and musicians can get their money
Are independent artists and musicians getting any significant amount of money with the current policy?
I'm currently reading about how folks who produced & performed 14th century plays supported themselves. So much that govs took in a healthy amount of taxes.
Historically (and now, for the most part) books were copyright the author, but a large of the profits accrued to the publisher. That system worked fine.
Would be nice if a higher proportion of the profits accrued to the author though.
It do pays. Means more work maybe. Doing recitals, or whatever…