Someone has to pay for the production in the first place.
Maybe, maybe not. It's perfectly valid to be OK with living in a world where all IP is of volunteer quality. For most of the history of man, music was produced for free, although performances were often paid for. In the renaissance, there was a trend for wealthy people to finance IP, yet still make it public. On the other hand, you will get a more efficient market if people make music and software for money.
The problem with using words like "freetard" or "M$" is that all that does is point out that one extreme or the other is stupid. Everyone already knows that.
As a example of you post not being informative: Did you use the word "freetard" because you feel that IP laws are too consumer friendly and should be tightened up? Do you really think that people are unaware that people make a living doing this? Why does IP take a great deal of effort to produce? Some famous songs were written by one person in 30 minutes. Should compensation be relative to effort? If I spent 30 years of my life writing a song, does that automatically make it worth millions of dollars, even if it sucks? Do content creator automatically "deserve" to be compensated? What if their creation does nothing but cause misery (like the guy who invented the gas chamber)? Should he get a royalty check ever time someone is put to death?
There are a thousand things to talk about. But you, and a million others, choose to talk about teenagers who think they should be allowed to download songs for free over the Internet. Yet, I'll bet you're OK with them listening to the radio for free.