I don't think it's a strawman; it's a response to the frequent argument that artists ought to be compensated for their art via copyright mechanisms... as she st

I don't think it's a strawman; it's a response to the frequent argument that artists ought to be compensated for their art via copyright mechanisms... as she stated in the very first sentence, as a matter of fact. If that argument was never actually made, well, maybe then it would be a strawman; but it is made all the time. The article hurt my head too, by the way, but that is because of the Weird Capitalization. I think there's a bit of conflation across several questions going on, both here and in most discussions on the topic: * Is an artist entitled to compensation merely for creating art? * Is an artist entitled to compensation by those who view their art? * Is an artist entitled to compensation by those who redistribute her art?