Becoming more of a business person (in a lot of cases) destroys the art that person makes.
In Australia there are new laws for collectable artwork. Where the original artists will always get a percentage of the work from every sale. As the work gets resold, always for a higher value, the artist gets a cut each time.
Good for artists, ok for collectors, good for government controlling artists.
To counter your argument - the market does not get reduced - but the artists also get a cut.
I'm not sure of all the sociological research that went into this policy, but it seems very sensible. I also know that it is backed up with scientific research - so you can look up the reasoning behind it.
I know some of the research was that many artists sell their work for almost nothing, and the collectors make most of the money. This has been going on for a long time. Consider Van Gogh who lived in poverty for all of his life... even though his work has generated many millions of euros. If this law was in place, he would have perhaps been able to share in some of the value his work produced(money wise).
Places like Sweden and Australia are way ahead in many areas socially compared the the US. Especially in the area of copyright, and helping artists. Sweden is a world leader socially, so paying close attention to what they do, and the scientific research behind their social policies is worthwhile.
Even though this seat is a political victory, it shows a deep understanding of the issues by the Swedish people - who are a very well educated population.
Your point akin to saying that startup founders aren't rewarded for innovating because a public company's stock is rarely owned by the company's original founders.
Saying that artists benefited from their arrangement with the labels is akin to saying that indentured servants benefited from theirs. That is, true in a narrow sense--the indentured servants did get food and shelter, didn't they?
Do you think artists should be prohibited from selling their copyrights, or that there is anything inherently wrong about them doing so?