A good debate going on, though nothing that will sway me from the idea that it rests solely with the creator of a work to decide how it's distributed and for how much.
I might add that I would hate anyone to get the idea that I'm a friend of big business in this - as far as I'm concerned most companies in this field have a solid record of being greedy, stupid and exploitative. The internet offers creative types all sorts of new opportunities for making a living without getting wrapped in their tentacles and I'm one hundred per cent behind that.
"Intellectual Property" defenders are simply missing the point that is all about monopoly and dictatorial control of ideas and has very little to do with actual economics.
These are the same people who would want to tax email because "mail service" should be the property of the postal system, and who would tax every use for out-of-country browsing because that would fall under "long distance communications".
Wake up, and closely look at what you are doing, buddy: YOU are watching Scott's daily cartoon without paying for it. You therefore must be an "Intellectual Property" thief.
I agree with your statement except for one thing. The copyright holder is supposed to have a certain number of years to make money of of his creation and then it's supposed to become public domain. When mickey mouses protection was set to expire, Disney got congress to extend the length of time copyright holders get protection. Plus the fact that the publishers have practices like charging the same money for physical copies as for electronic ones, I have little respect for them. Notice that when Apple started charging $.99 for music uploads, pirating of music decreased alot and the artist are getting paid. Plus they probably have way more sales than when they loaded CD's with a bunch of mediocre songs and people paid $15 for 1 or 2 good songs. Charge a fair price and most people won't go through the hassle of looking for pirated copies. They will pay for the better quality and convenience.