The issue now is not if the law is changed, but what the law says to implement the change. In other words, the mechanics.

I said in another related post that a 5-10 year period was right.

I must reconsider. 5-10 year period is too long, considering the new reality that marketing costs can be almost zero if no physical media is used to distribute the music. A song recording can be marketed by simply placing the recording for downloading on a web site.

Thus, a 3 year period is more reasonable.

Of course the issue id not if the recording is marketed. It is the payment of royalties. If no “adequate” royalty payments are received, the recording rights should revert to the “artist”.

What is an adequate royalty? I propose that it be 100 hours of work at minimum salary per year. In the USA, using a minimum salary of $7/hour, that would be $700 for each of last three years, or $2,100. If the artists has not been paid $2,100 in royalties for the past three years, he or she gets the ownership of the recording.

Contractually the arrangement can be improved for the artist (but not the label). If an artist can set the minimum at 1,000 hours ($21,000), fine. Perhaps major artists can have the negotiating clout to get whatever they want.

The more complex issue is who is the artist of an multiple artist recording?
This should be set in the recording contract. For example, for a rock band, it could be the band owner. For an orchestra recording it could be the director.