Actually, the issue here is that you're confusing the premise of the argument. The logic is: > As long as people continue to purchase or commercially use a

Actually, the issue here is that you're confusing the premise of the argument. The logic is: > As long as people continue to purchase or commercially use a product > the creator deserves to get their share of the revenue. Nobody brought up scientists and I don't know enough about that to have an opinion. The obvious difference is that Einstein observed/discovered "E = mc^2", he didn't create it. But there is just no point in comparing apples to oranges. The problem with your plumber argument is that, if he wanted to charge you less up front and a fee for each use of the faucet, that would be his and his customers' choice to make. As long as you pay the agreed upon fee to the plumber, whether it's a one time fee or a license, you and the plumber have agreed that it's a fair trade. You're arguing that, at some point, a person who previously did not purchase a person's song should suddenly have the right to own it at no cost, simply because the song has been around for over 20 years. Why should this new person have that right? The Grandma point was just to demonstrate that popular, high-selling music is usually made by the younger generation. If someone creates something during that time that continues to produce revenue, why should we insist that they no longer make money for it and force them to learn a new trade, since it's very impractical to assume that they, at their age, can continue to make popular music for an audience they're out of touch with?