Aside from the unhelpful "What?", that seems like DH4 Counterargument in pg's disagreement hierarchy[0], subtype "arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said".

Presumably "someone who makes music and sells recordings of it for a living", the people I was talking about, won't "feel as the gp". It doesn't seem like your criticism really touched on what I said.

(Maybe you are also assuming "No-one is entitled to make a living selling their music" or something like that.)

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I'm assuming no one is entitled to make money off of anything in particular, so yeah, music falls in that bin.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

Sorry, but I'm convinced this exchange is pointless.

> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

You literally were triggered by "What?" in your previous response so maybe you should take this guideline to heart yourself.

That's no comfort for the people trying to make a living from their work.

And? People can adapt. [0] Creating laws to artificially restrict technological advancements in order to protect one specific class of jobs is insanity.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obsolete_occupations

I'm not sure how you expect content creators to create content when they're not creating content anymore.

How do they "adapt" to putting food on the table when they're not getting paid for the work they do?