The backbone of this seems to be complaining about musicians having things difficult and not making as much money as they should. And accompanied by lots of num

The backbone of this seems to be complaining about musicians having things difficult and not making as much money as they should. And accompanied by lots of numbers and information. The problem is, it is in itself irrelevant. Why should anyone else care? Maybe professional gardners are having a hard time nowadays and not making much money. Do you care about that? Perhaps they are going to lobby for a law that will increase their income -- i.e. take money from you, and otherwise inconvenience you -- how does that sound? The point is this: we do not care about musician's, or anyone else's, self-interest; we, in general, care about how much we get from them. That is ultimately the only basis of justification for any law here. The public, though laws, grants 'creators' special provisions, in order that the public as a whole benefits. If you want to argue for such special provisions, you must show the benefits that the public generally will get. If you say creators are not making enough money, show that there is, from the public's view, too little stuff being produced. So is there too little music (etc.) being produced? The article did not seem to answer that question -- yet that is the only thing that counts. And from a casual view, as anyone can see just looking around them, there seems to be a heck of a lot of music out there at the moment. Show that insufficient stuff is being produced, and show that any proposed corrective laws or provisions are overall to the public's gain. Otherwise you have failed to make a case for laws that the public must bear the costs of. If the gist is that some big companies are making lots of money using your goods therefore you should get a larger share of it, that fails too. If some industry is making too much, the answer is not to divide it up differently, it is to stop them, somehow, making so much in the first place.