I've jumped both sides of the fence on this one, but I think I've finally landed on the side that asks why would we change an agreement about musician compensation only after a song makes a lot of money? If it's a work for hire, the deal is made and done--you play your part, get paid and go home. If the song earns ten bucks, you still got paid. If the song earns a million you still got paid...only now, you want a piece of the big pie.

I don't see where that line is drawn...it appears to be a movable line that only gets moved when the song is a success. So I'm back to square one, thinking the way it is now is fair enough.

If it's going to change, it should be on a contractual basis...but how can you go back and decide that original deals are no longer fair, no longer valid? Does it only count for successful songs? Would we go back and have the musicians on songs that made people go broke pay some money to the songwriters to even out the load? Doubt it.

http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman