Okay, my rebuttal.
1: "I buy a hotel, leave it to my kids, they carry on running the business renting out rooms. There's no time limit on that." Okay, fine, but they're making all the pertinent business decisions including all the creative marketing and everything that running a business consists of. Therefore there is a substantial difference between that scenario and just making money by having your daddy or mum right a song. You're talking about an example that uses physical property. Therefore a more apt comparison would be if I wrote a song and pressed a ton of CDs and left them to my kid, which is entirely different than a copyright.
2: "Builders don't make money on hotel room rentals. They make money from building hotels." Why the obsession with hotels? Once again, are you equating building a hotel with writing a song? So what if builders make money by building hotels, what's your point? Mine was that artists do not make the bulk of their money from recordings and that this actually represents a small portion of most artists income. Now I realize your'e talking about the song writing credit, most likely but that is a prime point, my friend. Builders are paid 1 time when they build a hotel. It may be spread into installments, but it's still basically a payment for finishing the building. So that payment scheme is absolutely not comparable to the IP payment scheme. Everyone else who gets paid for a job in the world gets paid once for it, except doctors, lawyers, patent holders, and IP copyright holders. Why should a song writer get to make money over and over again on one song, when the kid pumping out nikes in a sweatshop only gets paid the once. The kids contribution to the shoe shows just as much "creative influence" as Ringo Starr had on the typical Beatles album.
3. "No, they should be paid for their contribution, and I suspect they're long dead anyhow." So we're going to pay everyone for their "contribution?!?" How would that work. Take for example bluegrass music. It was invented by Bill Monroe, he literally decided to make a new style of music, his contribution to music then is that he created a genre. Not even Bill Monroe would expect to get money from every bluegrass act. Likewise, with Hip-Hop, John Cage was the first one to play two records at once and record it, so should he be paid for every hip-hop album? It's an idealic fantasy that you can pay people according to their contribution in a song. And getting to that, what if you don't even write the song. For example the Knack's "My Sharona" seems to me, the bulk of the money from that hit should go to the parents who named her Sharona, since that's pretty much the only lyric.
4. "No, the owner of the lift decides they want music in it, the record companies want to be paid for providing that music." - obviously you misunderstand my post. Record companies are paid by the lift owner I realize that. I'm saying that record companies are paid by a way of calculating how many "listeners" they are reaching in the lift, which is why they calculate the royalty and allot money according to how often a song is played/how many hours the drum is on, etc. Average volume of the store in question etc, all play a part. So yes, the end result is that record companies are getting paid based on the premise that people in lifts are listening to the music, when in fact a good deal of us want to blast it into oblivion.
5. "What about when you've already paid for a hotel room? Is it yours forever? Are you allowed to sublet it?" Okay to begin, you basically call me a retard, and then post this? I'm asking why in the hell I should be paying a song writing or phonographic recording royalty for songs that I've already paid all those royalties on numerous times before, especially if I'm also having to pay the mechanical royalty on those same songs multiple times. There are some songs I've paid for eight or nine times because of different circumstances, but in those cases, when I decide to listen to a song that's also on a DVD I load up my iPod. My point is that the music industry is out of control. Mechanical royalties are still paid out even though technically most of the money now is made selling music through non-mechanical means. It literally defies logic. Another illogical example, turntablists are given songwriting credit, although in reality what they are doing is arranging and not songwriting, for which a different royalty is reached. And none of these royalties has anything to do with helping the creator of music make music. All of the royalties exist, have existed, and will ever exist for is the betterment of the bulk of the copyright holders who are overwhelmingly not the creators of the music. Once again your hotel analogy fails, me paying for a hotel stay and being billed multiple times would be more akin to me buying a CD and a DVD that has the same song as one on the CD and paying three different royalties twice.
As to me being as you called it a freetard, I'll have you know I buy my music, even though I think it's stupid to support the music industry at this point when their business model is obviously broken, but they're like a drug cartel, they have what I need, and they've made it prohibitive to do otherwise. However, the notion of copyrights runs contrary to logic, which is why lobbyists and politicians had to create it out of the same slime-mold that spawned them, which is why copyrights as a concept is under 300 years old. It's a failed model like Soviet Communism, or mid-east peace negotiations, or day-light savings time.
Mine's the one with the bible I stole from the Hotel. Take that!