There's a world of examples of artists being coerced by industry bureaucracy Jermone
Richard Berry , writer of Louie Louie sold for $750 (later winning a $2M lawsuit)
It was the Kingsmen (the band that blew the song up) that got sued, specifically *because they hadn't paid any royalties for their cover* of it. They won that suit. And they weren't sued by Berry. They were sued by the guy who ran the company Berry sold it to.
Berry sold his publishing rights for $750 but retained radio play rights. He bought 3/4ths of the publishing rights back in the 80s. He didn't get ripped off. He wrote a song, sold it, and it blew up huge. He made a pretty decent living writing songs, had one blow up to huge fame, and bought and sold his rights to it just as the law says.
So yes, you may claim it's the'law' , but it can not achieve, nor can it assume any moral high ground as the 'law'
It is absolutely morally correct that the owners of a song have 100% complete control over what happens with that song. That includes all rights for play, copy, publishing, and reproduction.
Were I to have the grand priviledge to play Paul McCartney, Chuck Berry , Robert Plant's creations in front of them, do you really think they'd have hat in hat?, speed dial their lawyers?
No, they'd simply wait for their check from BMI or ASCAP, just like the thousands of other artists those organizations protect. It is their job to look after McCartney and Plant's best interests.
Where i to do the same for some up/coming area artist (yes i've met my share) do you think they're approach would differ?
What they do with their property is entirely up to them. If they think it's cool you play their stuff, then good on them. If they think you should pay them for the right to use their material then you should break out the checkbook.
How anyone steals by simply presenting the 'works' of said entities is purely the machinations of greedy recording industry elitists , who have so little in common with the real musical world it makes me wonder why they pursue it other than stuffing their own coffers
It is the theft of someone's right and privilege to control how their work is used by those who think they should simply have access to whatever they want regardless of the artists desires. And it's usually with some contorted justification based on "greedy executive" straw men and the singularly bizarre notion that by violating those artists rights, they're actually doing them a favor. By your line of reasoning, Berry shouldn't even have received $750 for Louie Louie as anyone should have just been able to use it however they wanted.
If you want full control over stuff, write your own stuff. When you're playing someone else's stuff, you do it according to their rules. And for a whole lot of people, their rules are "I've joined a rights enforcement group to do that for me."
That's how it should be, as well as being the law.