Well, that's how the commercial film industry works. You write a script, flog it to a producer (for a fee or a cut of profits, or both), the producer finds someone willing to put up the cost of production (executive producer/s and/or studio), cast and crew get paid, and the film gets made. THEN, those who paid for it hope to see a profit through screenings and DVD sales.
If you're a big enough star or an A-level DoP, you can negotiate for a cut of the profits, but if your job is 2nd unit camera assistant, you'll be paid at the union rate.
Copyright is one clause in your contract. Either you agree to sign away all future claims in exchange for being paid the weekly rate for your work (that would be all the "below the line" cast and crew), or your agent negotiates an insane "fee" for your work, and maybe includes a cut of profits.
Those who fund production want their money back, and more. It's worth it (to them) to do whatever's necessary to keep milking those cash cows, e.g. the mouse, for as long as they can. As always, it's the money that talks, not morals. I'd like to see copyright terms set to something reasonable, but what's reasonable when the mouse continues to bring in $BIGNUM every year? We're not going to see copyright reform until people vote in governments with enough spine to stand up to the money.
As for streaming radio, I pay ~USD$70 annually to Live365. I'd happily pay half that again IF the extra went 50/50 to the composers and performers.