> Recorded music is the advertising for the musician. I don't understand why I should pay for that advertising. What they are advertising is their ability to perform music and they will receive my money when I pay to watch them perform or purchase their merchandise.
No. Just no. Concerts and merchandise are lame excuses for people who prefer not to pay for music. You don't decide what the artist is selling.
In most cases the album is the actual product. You may see it as an advertisement, but it has a very real price tag attached. If you don't want to pay for it, fine - but please don't feel entitled to it because you attended a concert or bought a shirt.
Furthermore, do you realize that not every artist is a rock band? An ambient artist releases intended for home listening, may have a hard time
a) selling t-shirts to a mature audience that isn't all that interested in colorful prints on hip shirts
b) filling anything but the smallest venues since the music might be less suited for clubs and stadiums compared to that band you probably had in mind
> I don't get paid for people to use my work without any involvement from me past the fact I created something. Why should a musician be paid for you listening to the music they created. They aren't putting in any hours for me to hear that past the original creation. What are they getting paid for?
I can't believe how naive this sounds. You probably don't sell any kind of digital good, do you? Would you say the same thing about software, apps, books? The artist put a lot of hours into the original work and that's what you pay for.
Do you think you paid for the medium or the distribution process back when you bought CDs? That was a fraction of the price.
> On that note... fuck the music industry.
The music industry is much more than the handful of major labels. There are countless small, caring and niche labels that absolutely have the interests of artists and listeners in mind in everything they do. Your view is very narrow in that regard.