Very much so. I can understand listing a credit as author so plagiarism can't be an issue, but century old rights and usage fees/permissions? That's a crock. There needs to be a much more reasonable expiration time frame. By 25 years most of the money and fame have been gotten out of such works. The result of the current laws is contrary to the reason behind the intent of the original laws to start with.
The author rights were often falsely under the name of the producer/promoter (sometimes using the real name and sometimes under an alias).
Since the money is in the publishing, it was kickback for the likes of Alan Freed and others.
It doesn’t surprise me that Big Media would screw the performers and undercut a musicians’ lawsuit with their own ‘settlement’ and negotiate not to pay artists for another 2 years (or pay them for 10+ years of back dated wrongs).
Mobsters got the Jerry Leiber publishing rights to rock and roll. Hung him out a window and coerced him into signing over the rights for past hits, they paid him a dollar for his troubles.
He made money afterwards by buying other peoples’ publishing catalogs (like the rights to Somewhere Over The Rainbow).
Those reaping the rewards were not the authors and often it was by ill gotten means. Look up what Allen Klein did to the Beatles and the Stones.
Perpetuity of the rights does nothing to benefit the creators or the performers (who must continue to pay some third party to perform their own material live).
The way the music business works nowadays, there is more money in the older hits than there is in all but a handful of new artists. Even the older performers who make the top 20 concert draws are playing material that is 30-50 years old even though they continue writing and recording new albums.
This system is stifling ‘progress’ or at least contemporary artist development and as already noted, it isn’t benefiting the older ‘hit’ artists who’s work is heard in so many places.