On how good they are. If enough of us like what they do then of course they should. Supply & demand like everything else in business.

No professional status for creative types = no Shakespeare (a businessman!), Dickens, Fab Four - to name but a few.

But it is only a right if their work is deemed marketable (horrible word, but it's the truth). If there is a big enough market for a creative product then the author should get paid. If the publisher gets paid, or the record company gets paid, or the gallery gets paid then the artist should get a slice - but they must recognise that they are only a cog in a larger machine. Once it leaves the brain of the creator, then the selling bit starts - and the selling bit, reaching a big enough audience, is an important part of the process.

Of course, if artists are too 'unworldly' to put up with that, or aren't motivated by paying the rent then fine, have a hobby.

SInce the age of patronage ended that's been the model - it seems to work. Obviously with the advent of all things digital the game is changing, but you still can't get much decent stuff for free online, apart from the Word website, of course! People will always pay for a quality product, I think. Which means that good artists will always get paid for what they do - they might not earn a fortune, but they will still have a professional status - I think that is important.

Surely, if you create anything or provide a service it's up to you whether you want remuneration for it. It really doesn't matter what line of "work" you're in. For example, some people write software and give it away, some people expect to be paid for everything they produce, some mix and match. The problem that the musicians have is that other people are deciding that they want to make use of the service but they don't want to pay for it.

whatever its germinitaion and plaigarism witheld, surely you are entitled to its profits. Da Vinci and Mozart weren't in it for free.

Times have changed, and what people are prepared to pay for has changed. If your audience is mainly composed of "younger" people then it is likely they have a broadly different set of expectations. Artists targeting this audience will either have to come up with a new business model that maximises their revenue within the constraints and demands of user needs or accept that they are out of time and get out of the business. The fact that it is "art" doesn't exempt them from the forces that affect any other kind of business.

Many businesses, whether "artistic" or not, continue to thrive and many fail. Those that survive understand the market they're in and act accordingly. Perhaps if certain artists downgraded their expectations as to the rewards and lifestyles they feel they deserve they wouldn't rail against the incoming tide quite so much and quite so ineffectively.