I dunno. These things really do help artists. (Disclosure: my sister is a professional singer, and does indeed get royalties both from studios and from the Swiss music copyright agency from the blank media fees. It's no fortune, since she's not really at that level of success yet, but it's helpful, and a nice reminder that it's not just a hobby.)
What governs the benefits she receives?
I don't know how it works, and the relevant organization's FAQ isn't working at the moment so I can't check. All I can glean from the bits that are working is that it's a complex formula.
Why do you think she is more worthy of benefits than anyone else?
Take it down a notch, man.
The reason for copyright levies like this is to cover the situations that
can't be covered by accurate accounting. So for example, the royalties for an album sale or for concert or radio time is easily calculated and thus can be accounted for specifically. It'd be impossible to do this for blank media by actual end use, so statistical averages are used.
If someone writes software for a living, then perhaps they should also receive some benefits from the blank media tax?
Someone already said this above, and this was my reply:
Given how pervasive software piracy is, I’m not entirely sure that’s a bad idea...
If she depends on benefits to get by, she should get a job which pays properly. She can sing in her spare time and if she gets paid, then great, but there's no reason why artists should be propped up by taxes and benefits, which no one else gets!
It's not "benefits" like welfare, it's compensation for use of their creations that haven't been compensated otherwise, like making a mix tape for a friend, since this means the friend did not pay for your song, but is getting to enjoy it.
She
does have a job that pays properly. She doesn't live off royalties, far from it, and I never claimed she did. It's extremely rude for you to insinuate this so disparagingly (as if it were something like being on the dole), especially given that I accurately explained the situation in my original disclaimer. The fact is, my sister's voice is in recordings that are sold here and appear in the media, and it's fair for her to receive royalties for this. I don't think you'd be OK with your voice being used and not being compensated for it.
Besides, there is societal value in promoting the arts: we consumers of the arts get to enjoy a larger array of creative works. And we get to live in cultured societies. I, for one, do not want the arts to become something that only the independently wealthy can afford to do. (As is already happening in some disciplines, like journalism.) You cannot be a professional musician "in your spare time".
Someone bakes cakes, so they get paid for each cake they make.
Yes. And the whole point of copyright levies is to compensate for what would otherwise be theft. Or do you actually think that musicians should only ever be paid once? (As in, the studio pays them a lump sum for the song and that's all they'll ever get for it, no matter how many millions of records the studio may sell, and how much they make by licensing it?)
Another person sings. They sing one really good song and never have to work again, because they get paid every time it's played!
How is that really fair?
So is it "fair" for artists to have to tolerate their product being used by people who didn't pay for it?
Yes, there's logic in "but I am not using THIS blank CD for music, why should I pay for
that??", but at some point one has to strike a balance between
absolute fairness and practicality.
Why can the singer lounge around, doing nothing whilst the baker has to keep working? It's crazy!
The vast majority of musicians aren't "lounging around". Most -- even published ones -- make very little in royalties. (Even among famous musicians, there's little money in royalties. Professional musicians' real income comes almost entirely from live performances.) NOBODY can get rich by recording a one-hit wonder and then sitting on their ass. The copyright belongs to the record company, and your share is dictated by your record contract. And those stipulate obligations like performing at events, doing interviews, etc. If you don't do those things, you get nothing.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you probably think the artists' royalties on a recording are
far larger than they actually are. (For instance, even a big name artist would be lucky to get 60¢ from the sale of an entire $15 album. And they've gotta divide this up among all the band members, the songwriters, producers, any musicians hired, etc. The royalties for radio play and streaming are minuscule.)
Anyhow, I'm actually probably not as big a proponent of copyright levies as it sounds, I'm just trying to provide a sensible counterpoint to the rabidly opposed opinions on this thread, which IMHO are a bit simple-minded. For example, I couldn't agree more about needing to reduce the length of copyrights. (Indeed, much of intellectual property law needs to be revamped, especially patents.)