Re: let me be the first to say ...
I argue that content creators should be paid similar to everyone else. Their efforts remunerated based on the amount of labour they put in, not on "ownership" of an intangible property. Just as I cannot shovel your sidewalk once and then charge you rent forever more, a copyright owner should not be able to record a single song and then dine on it for eternity.
Creative works need to be remunerated, but they are not property, no more so than the labour I put in to systems administration or journalism. Creators - like anyone else - are only as good as the last erg of effort they've cranked into the system. They should be paid for their time, but emphatically not allowed to rent seek on intangibles.
If you stay in my house, you ultimately degrade the infrastructure. You prevent my using the space you occupy for other things. You use up tangible consumables that are commodities of varying scarcities. In this circumstance, rent makes sense. I have to pay to maintain my property, I have to replace those consumables and I might have otherwise used that space as a home gym or shrine to Cthulhu.
Digital copies of creative works have no scarcity. They are intangible and cannot be consumed. My enjoyment of it does not deprive you of the ability to enjoy a copy of it simultaneously, nor to share it with others, also simultaneously. By any rational, moral or ethical argument it is not property.
This doesn't change the fact that a content creator should be paid for their work. If they put in 5 hours writing an article, they should be compensated at a reasonable rate. We should even factor in that work for freelance content creators - like consultants - is not steady, so they should be able to charge a higher per-hour rate, as they get fewer hours. Like a consultant, they should hopefully be spending their non-project hours refining their skills and honing their abilities in their niche, so as to justify the cost.
The truly exceptional among them should be able to command top dollar. Equivalent, say, to a VCDX...and for the same reasons. The skills are rare.
The mundane should be offered no more than your run-of-the-mill bench tech, again, for the same reasons. The skills involved are pedestrian.
Let's posit a scenario:
As a help desk operator I take your call one day. I walk you through changing the ream of paper in your printer. I call this knowledge I have imparted to you "intellectual property" and demand that you pay me $5 every time you change a ream of paper. If you teach someone else to change a ream of paper without my consent then you are committing theft of my intellectual property. If someone else discovered how to change the ream of paper independently, it doesn't matter, because I taught someone in your company how to make that change first, and thus I get to exact rent for 120 years.
Sounds ridiculous? So does 120 years worth of tithe for Steamboat Willie.
The difference between rent seeking on the transmission of knowledge and rent seeking on the transmission of intangible, infinitely reproducible elements of culture exists only in the minds of those desperate to the be rent seekers.
Now, If you hit "submit" on a comment ever again, know that I thought of it first and you owe me $19.99 every time. Attempting to get someone else to hit submit on your behalf is a violation of my intellectual property and you will be fined $100,000 for each infraction as well as go to jail for 7 years.
That seems perfectly fair to me. Submit.