I'd read a print-out of the author's pages and am just getting to this now.
First, its pretty tangential to my bitch about kids knowingly breaking the law and then bitching about being punished for it. And these articles still fail to really address that.
The reality is that music is a copyrighted product, at least under law, like it or not. So, this quote I pulled from another guy's post applies (and was directly related to the music downloading issue):
You pay the amount that both you and the seller agree to. If the seller is smart, he takes into consideration how much of the market is willing to pay what amount and maximizes his profits. If the buyer is smart, he considers how much the seller is selling it and how much it is worth it to him. The music industry in general might not be selling at maximum customers, or even maximum profit, but they've picked a price. If you don't like the price, don't buy it.
Obviously if you don't buy it you don't get it, at least legally. But its up to the suppliers of these products to decide what the sales price is and the consumer can *only* opt to purchase it or not.
I will retract an incorrectly used word I made before, which is "theft". I'm not sure that's the correct use of the term wrt copyrighted materials and I've seen some pretty lengthy arguments about the use of it. But the point is that if an artist of any kind wants to be paid for use of his work in any fashion, he has the legal right to require it or legally go after those who don't.
Incidentally, I thought this was a bit of a surprise statement
on the music downloading issue.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, and these blogs look to me to be quite driven by criminal law, not civil. Very different and not very comparable. Companies do not have to please voters, only customers.