The Beatles did not exploit the labor of people pressing their records to become wealthy. Those same people pressed records for other artists who did not make it big, or even fell flat. Their labor input was exactly the same.

The difference was in the songs the Beatles created. The Beatles created those songs, not the laborers who pressed the records.

Or take Stevie Nicks, who google reports is worth $100m. Are the stage hands who set things up for a concert creating that wealth for her? Nope. Those stage hands could do exactly the same for my unrecognized musical talent, I could pay them the same, and would lose gigantic amounts of money.

Is Stevie exploiting those stage hands? If she is, then wouldn't those stage hands doing the exact same work for me be exploiting me for my foolish money?

Bottom line is people are entitled to what they can negotiate for. They don't give it back if their employer loses money, so why would they be entitled to what their employer made?