>IP rights holders want control of entertainment. They do not want free or cheap entertainment to exist.
Oh nonsense. First of all, you're lumping every rights holder into the same group. This is wrong. There are some groups that want money for their work, some that give it away, and some that are a mix of both. The major record companies fall into that first group. But there are plenty of independent artists that fall into the second and third groups.
>if the world worked the way their model proposes it should, if you don't have the money then you wouldn't be able to listen to music, watch movies, or play electronic games.
You mean "their" music, movies, and games. They have the right to control how their work is distributed, and they should have that right. But you also have the right not to support them and to seek out alternative music, movies, and games that are released for free.
The thing that bothers me most about people who hold views like yours is that you have to have it exactly your way. You'd force everyone to go copyleft instead of letting people pick and choose how they want to handle their IP. You feel entitled to other people's work, and if things were the way that you wanted them, artists would be the poorest lot out there. The big companies might be a bit overbearing when it comes to protecting their rights, but you'd be hard pressed to find any of their artists scrapping by for money. Sure, artists make most of their money on performances, but if their music wasn't being heavily promoted by these companies, no one would ever hear of them.
