[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437383523' post='2825386']
That's not quite what I was referring to in the (admittedly weak...) analogy. The basic point is that, if and while work is being done, then the work should be paid, no quibbles. Once it's done, though, it's done, and shouldn't generate revenue simply for the fact of being 'wanted'. I was comparing the listening to a song to someone coming to look at (not own, nor take away; just to look at...) a painting I'd acquired. The original artist is not paid 'per look', and doesn't get to know whether his work generates a lot of lookers or not. His work is finished, and has been paid for.
[/quote]
Paid for by one person (who possibly commissioned it), who then owns it.
What's the parallel with an artist investing their own time & money into creating an album?
I honestly don't subscribe to this 'music is worth nothing' school of thought. It brings pleasure. Someone paid to make it. They should be rewarded.