Sure, dude. You nailed it.

Do you think you're in some sort of competition here, and that you're somehow winning it with these comments?

Then he goes on to explain that what he likes about it is the positive message it sends to the young people who like the song.

He's not talking about how the song affects him. He's talking about how it affects young people who might need to hear that type of message.

GB: “Shake It Off” is wonderful, and “Shake It Off” means something to me.
There’s also something great about knowing there are little boys and
girls who are going through shit that is real to them right now and they
just need to be reminded to shake it off. Because the “haters gonna
hate hate hate hate hate.

In fairness, he did write that tune about the damage done.

Did you know that many, if not most, small businesses are incorporated? At least in the US, that is.

Your candor is admirable.

The science proves that this is probably accurate.

Those children had it coming.

This is often true, although it's worth pointing out that not all artists get a cash advance, such as those on a small label that can't afford it or acts who are well-established enough that they don't need money upfront and can therefore negotiate a better deal on the back end.

Nothing, because the price you charged upfront for the road or the copper was for the purchaser's right to lifetime usage. Music is different because it can be used to generate new income in various ways long after it was originally created. Each of those income-generating uses constitutes a new transaction between…

Yeah, that distinction was totally relevant and it was I who was wasting your time. Whatever you need to tell yourself. Cheers.

Why not just charge a one-time fee upfront for all accounts, even the basic non-premium account? That would certainly cut down on the number of people who might start multiple accounts to get around the limitation the OP suggested. No one is going to start a second account and pay another $10 sign-up fee just to…

I was responding directly to someone else's comment on a very specific point. You're just pretending my initial comment was unclear because you refuse to admit that your own comment was irrelevant to the exchange you jumped into.

It's true that those types of companies were behind the legislation that extended the term of copyrights, but that legislation also helps all creators of original content by making their copyrights more valuable too. What exactly is the great benefit in allowing Mickey Mouse or "Happy Birthday" to pass into the…

"Different mediums and uses have different royalty requirements and to the layman, the differences aren't always clear."

My initial comment had nothing to do with who gets the royalties. It was simply meant to correct jesse's mistaken belief that radio stations are exempt from paying any royalties at all. Why you're insisting that my comment was somehow off base simply because I didn't go into superfluous detail is anybody's guess.

Do you mean "troll-tally?" Because you can't be serious.

Yeah, but I was talking about radio, which means performance royalties exclusively. Radio has nothing to do with mechanical royalties, which is what you're talking about for some reason. Why would I need to mention rights that are totally unrelated to the context of my comment?