Re:Why? (Score 0)

This seems to be the popular opinion and I feel the same way, but I'm gonna take the other side for intellectual good. We're supposed to be a logical community. This argument is riddled with subjectivity; we need to lay down some real, non-emotional reasoning. Why shouldn't someone get a lifetime income for what they've created? If what they produce is still in demand, people will pay for it. If you write a program for profit, do you think everyone will agree on the number of times it can be copied before royalties are due? You have the right to specify a variety of licensing schemes; why shouldn't the RIAA choose theirs? Should we limit every person's income to force them to keep working? The richest entrepreneurs in the world still work, even though they could have retired from their first success (Bill Gates, McJagger, Oprah, Steve Jobs, Larry and Sergey). Why do you get to say 95 years is too long? What about 10 years? What percent profit makes a person/organization too greedy? We can't factor these arbitrary, implied morals into our arguments and call them valid just because our demographic emotionally agrees.