Well, they make the consumer end product. The man on the street couldn't care less about Jane's fine song unless he gets it in a final package. If Jane is not talented enough, willing enough, well-connected enough, knowlegeable enough, economically advantaged enough to produce a consumer good for the public, her fine song will languish (commercially speaking).

The consumer pays his dollars for what he receives, (let's say a CD) which as far as he sees is the product of the performing artist and the recording company. He may never see, let alone heed, Jane's credit as the songwriter, even if it's correctly given on the CD. The retailer has to have a cut, probably a distributor, the publisher (which may be the recording company), and of course the performer(s), and of course Jane.

Say the retail price is US$15. Is Jane ethically entitled to more than the retailer? If she hadn't written the song, there would be no $15 to split. But if the retailer didn't sell it there would be nothing either. If there's a distributor, somewhat the same can be said, although a distributor is not a NECESSARY step in the process. But there has to be a recording entity, maybe a separate publisher, and performing artist(s). And of course Jane.

Now realistically the publisher is the one pretty much controlling the flow of the money, and will have a BIG say in this process. So guess what? The publisher will get a nice piece of the traffic. If the publisher's marketing strategy is to merchandise the name of a big star, you know that the big star will get taken care of, or he/she won't play. If not a big star, the cost of promotion is likely to be relatively higher, seems to me.

In all of this process, Jane is at the least advantage because she has the least power to say no.

I don't know anything to say about the rights or wrongs of how Jane is treated or how much she gets, but the above are just SOME of the considerations that go into it.

Dave Oesterreich