[gnaritas]

> that artists and musicians either don't deserve a good living or should be happy just to get to do what they do

They don't; that's simply a fact, no one is owed or deserves a living, you have to work for it like everyone else. If there is demand for what you do, monetize it, if you can't, then pick another career because the market has spoken. You can't mandate that X career deserves to be paid, the market does that naturally via demand.

> It's a tremendous sense of entitlement on the one hand, to express contempt for the individual while expecting unlimited access to their work.

Stating facts about their lack of being entitled to anything isn't expressing contempt. If they don't want people accessing their work, they don't have to publish it, but expecting perpetual payment anytime anyone looks at what you put out is absurd; intellectual property is a flawed notion that only worked well when distribution was a challenge. With virtually free distribution, you cannot prevent information being free, i.e. copying, and thus you cannot rely on making money from distribution; you better learn how to make money performing live, as has been done historically.

[readymade]

It's funny how tech companies are making money from the distribution of this supposedly valueless content that the market supposedly has no demand for.

[gnaritas]

Tech companies tend to sell services, which have value, and can be removed from those who don't want to pay. Websites are services.

[Kalium]

Perhaps the value is in the distribution, rather than the content.