Many people here believe a necessary and legitimate role of law is to provide specific methods for creators of intellectual goods to earn income, and are willin

Many people here believe a necessary and legitimate role of law is to provide specific methods for creators of intellectual goods to earn income, and are willing to encroach on people's freedoms in order to archive this goal. Other's don't view this as a necessary or legitimate role of law (and many aren't even convinced that intellectual property law actually provides a net benefit from a utilitarian standpoint). I believe it is specifically the creator's responsibility (and in general, the market's role) to figure out how the creator can make money. I am reminded of a rather blunt slogan found in cat-v (http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/) and in the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom's page (http://c4sif.org/ http://c4sif.org/): "Your failed business model is not my problem."