Holding to the rights to songs you wrote is not *a kind of monolopy*; it's called private property. Without which there would be little incentive to create. We don't need socialized music.
"Holding rights to songs...", not "holding to the rights to songs..."
Good! Then let's go back to the copyright term BEFORE the Socialist New Deal, eh?
Seems to me the more money entertainers make, the worse their music is--this is what happens when technology artificially enables a small group of businessmen to control an art.
People will always do what they enjoy doing--whether they are paid for it or not.
I am not paid to give you this advice, for example, and what I write here is not protected by copyright--yet I give and write it anyway.
Were I a musician today, I'd give my music away for free on the internet.
I'd use the internet to publicize my work.
Then if what I create people like enough, I would then use the internet to sell tickets to live performances.
For that and such things as selling autographs, doing soft-drink commercials, etc., I would make a comfortable living to say the least.