"When enough people figure out they can get it for cheap or nothing..."
The problem with that statement is that if they don't get the $50k, then NOBODY gets the item. So, those people who find the product worthwhile, will, inevitably, pay more than those who offer very little.
ok ok so the original definition of piracy is
"practice of a pirate; robbery or illegal violence at sea"
The problem with your argument is that English is a living language. For example, the orignial definition of "Terrific" was synonnymous with "Terrifying", but bastardizations of the definitions have changed that term to be more synonymous with "stupendous".
Unfortunately the society you suggest will never exist.
Until someone invents a device like the "replicator" from Star Trek, food must be produced -- either agriculture or horticulture -- and then provided to people. It's human nature to not want to do work without compensation, so farmers will typically ask for some sort of trade, often in the form of money. If you want to buy the food you must first have money, and, therefore, a means by which to acquire said money in accordance with local laws and societal norms.
"Don't you think that perhaps...unionized NYT that pays for health care...is somehow, maybe, contributing more to society...."
When unions first came about in the US in the 1950's, they had their place because management attempts to violate contract provisions of their employees was quite common; it still happens, so unions still do have a place.
However, nowadays most unions are simply taking employee funds and using them to lobby for political ideals. How does this help the worker? Answer: it doesn't, it helps union leaders and ONLY union leaders.
I'm noticing a bit of a schism:
You say you believe in free speech, yet you say that some people should not be allowed to express their opinions so that you don't have to "wade through the daily garbage to get to the roses".
So which is it? Freedom of Speech across the board, or only for those who are deemed "worthy"?
I love music as a whole, and am more than willing to pay a REASONABLE price for specific music that I find enjoyable.
That being said, the term "starving artist" wasn't orignially coined as rhetoric. Just sayin....
I agree. I don't often get a chance to read, let alone comment on the articles here, but when I do, those comments just tick me off; even if I happen to agree with them (which is rare). So, from here on out, following your lead on this, KT.
While I cannot discount that, it does need to be said that there are some who don't present their arguments constructively (I know I know, but it's true).
Regardless of which side of the issue you support, if you are going to write your Congressman, emotionally charged statements do not help; more likely, they often hinder.
So...even when hear does = listen, sometimes the argument is not exactly a swaying one.