This really infuriates me. They are performers who have arguably made the world more pleasant to be in but they've hardly sacrificed themselves have they? Normal people with normal jobs should stop putting these pampered greedy free-loaders on pedestals and then let's see how many of them are prepared to suffer for their art. My view is the quality of musical output will improve 100-fold.

Christine, Essex, UK

Why Lonnie's wife needs SO much cash??? She is planning to take some friends to see Barabara Streisand!!

andrew, manchester, uk

I have that sneaking suspicion that one of the reasons why performers’ rights have been so generous is because in the vast majority of well-known cases I have written the music yet, as is widely known in the business, other people are getting the royalties. That is to say that I get no money at all and presently live on the minimum income. Hence the reason why The Beatles and ABBA lived fairly modest life-styles and many other musicians, who would be expected to be very wealthy, have to live quite modestly, because they haven’t in fact written the music and only have the performing rights. That, of course, includes America, both in Pop, and Country and Western. It is an altogether deceitful environment, especially at the top.

Henry Percy, London, UK

"Mrs Donegan, 50, his third wife" who was one year old at the time of the song gets 40 grand a year for a song I've never heard off. I wish to sue my music teacher for not pointing out how much I could have made if I paid interest to that flute she gave me to play. Never seen such a moaning load of people admire writers who still work and entertain us with new material but I did not get a refund when I threw my vinyl copyright in the bin

James Hendry, Adelaide , Australia

Doesn't most of the population have to make its pension provision out of an income of £30,000 - £40,000 a year?

Why should a singer's widow have a peculiar 'right' to a pension

Mark, Manchester,

I agree. And it's not as if this is a recent change that has affected their financial planning. I reserve my pity for those people who have made provision for their future by saving, then been shafted by their pension fund provider or the stock market. Income runs out, plan for it, save for it, stop moaning.

Andy, Stevenage, UK

I am sorry but what is the problem here? Invest a percentage of the royalties in a pension fund like the rest of the population has to when you are earning the money. Take the pension when you are allowed like the rest of us.

I have no sympathy for the "have my cake and eat it" brigade. You seem to want to live the high life when times are good. Spend big and then when the money runs out, moan that the rules aren't fair.

Welcome to the real world.

Si, Reading,

I wish I had a job where I could carry on getting paid for 50 years after I last did any actual work.

James, London, England

Not at all. it's the Berne convention. And why were these musicians so foolish as not to invest some of their current earnings over a 50-year period into their pensions? Everybody else is expected to make adequate provision. The article above also talks about the expiry of the copyright in recordings. That belongs to the record company. What the artistes should be complaining about, if anything, is the similar expiry of performance right after a fifty-year term. Even then, I expect session musicians signed the rights over to the recording company. Maybe they should approach the recording companies instead...

Mike H, Oxford, UK

I think that I'll complain that when I stop working I don't get paid. It's the same thing. It would be ludicrous for my family to receive monies after my death for a job I stopped doing decades before, whatever job I had.

Saying that artists should be paid in perpetuity for their art was never an option for painters, sculptors, or actors. What is at issue is extended copyright duration. Record companies argue that they need perpetual exclusivity to continue innovation and that the public is failing to support the poor relatives of past artists (as if I should be reimbursed for having been rich and losing it). But extended copyrights harm the development of culture: I cannot record and distribute a new take on "She Loves Me" without the copyright holder's permission. But that song, while a key part of something "then", cannot be made a thing "now" because of the control of the Music Industry. This hinders artistic innovation and development of cultural narrative. Don't tolerate this!

Ken Lewis, St Albans, UK

The Purpose of copyright was to grant a limited monopoly in exchange for encouraging creation. Retroactive extension of copyright does nothing to create new works, it simply gives rent seekers, who produce nothing, extra profit, and they are complaining that the original bargain of copyright terms when the work was created is being expected to be honoredd. Copyright extension do not do anytjing to encourage more creativity, because chances are the author is not going to be alive. Also, if there is so much concern over the Artist, why do record companies try to argue both the artist is an employee (meaning song is a work for hire and record company owns the copyright), while at the same time make artist responsible for cost of production and if it doesn't return a profit the artist owes the label money. Book writers and actors are not expected to be employees AND responsible for costs as if they were a full partner, while denied profit particpation.

Paul Robinson, Arlington, Virginia, USA

I imagine that Mrs Donnegan wants the money because she is making regular royalty payments to all the teachers involved in her education. No? Why was singing a song so much more worthy of payments for ever than the lessons they taught her?

JGH, Belfast,

Session musicians don't normally get paid royalties - the reason that they are session musicians is that they are usually hired on a one-off basis and get a flat fee. I sense the hand of the giant music corporations behind the sob stories of penniless rock-star widows etc.
Is there any reason why someone who earns 30 - 40,000 a year (over a considerabel period of time) should not have made sufficient provision for a pension?
I lost all sympathy for this cause when those potentially-poverty-stricken billionaires U2 got in on the act.

Sarah N, London, UK

so basically it's all because of EU copyright rules; and Britain is left only with lobbying Brussels in the area.

Democracy in action.

Kenny, tokyo, japan

How odd that Led Zeppelin should contribute 'Whole Lotta Love" since the song was a brazen steal of "You Need Love' by Willie Dixon.
Led Zeppelin FINALLY paid out royalties to Dixon after a court case in
1985 - 16 years after they first recorded his song.

G Gardner, Edinburgh, United Kingdom