we really need to make a tradeoff between our desire to freely deal with information (especially to do new things with old ideas, but also to profit from the creations of others), and the need for a regime where creators have a way to get paid.
This argument is based on assumption that the artificial scarcity is the only way to make profit out of creative work. This assumption is false - there are numerous success stories and studies proving that it is possible to make profit without the need to make your work artificially scarce using copyright, DRM etc. (if you are interested, check out techdirt.com regularly writing about this stuff). Attempts to restrict copying are more about inability/unwillingness of legacy business to adapt. Actually, if your assumption were right we would be all doomed and creative work would cease to exist because technological progress made it impossible to stop copying and sharing - artificial scarcity is a history.
What? And this man is talking about freedom? Please... you are not in a position to tell me what I must not do. Part of my freedom is an option to trust someone and give them control over my computing. I know what RMS has done, he used to be a great man but... I have grown up in a communist totalitarian country and watching RMS getting older is like watching some old commies - turning something that started like an idealistic fight for freedom into rigid dogma where there is the only truth and we "must not" do anything else then the dogma says... really sad.
Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.