If the creator gave up their copyright then it's not absurd, it's law. This is why it's important for budding artists to keep their masters.
Artists need exceptional leverage to negotiate a licensing deal instead of a buy out with a reversion option. Most new artists don't have that.
While HN is stuck on its usual obsession with copyright, the reality is the entire ecosystem is bad.
Labels and distributors have the best of all possible worlds. They used to invest in artist development. Now they don't. Most spend very little on promotion, except for household name headliners who are guaranteed earners. Some demand 360 deals where they get a share of all income - sales, plays, touring, and so on.
They're giant corporations run by MBAs whose existence is entirely parasitic.
Radio? Forget about it. Big concerts next to big agents? Nope.
Thing is, breaking through or even is ever harder.
The other thing people seem to forget is that many of the original labels were talent agencies. The reason they promote anyone at all is to try and recoup the investment of supporting all of them. You don't have to empathize with record labels, but modern artists can absolutely "scale" without someone artificially inflating their popularity.
> they used to invest in artist development. Now they don't. Most spend very little on promotion
You seem to be claiming they are providing value.
It they aren't providing any value then artists should not sign up. If the are providing value then it's up to the artist whether or not that value is worth it.
Radio? who listens to radio now-a-days?