...is the association of "paying" with "getting". Ever since the concepts of "shareware" and "demoware", this concept has been false for a significant number of people.
(Yes, the FSF was there first, but it didn't matter to most people, until Linux came along.)
In truth, the concept of "paying for what you get" doesn't work. It's been abandoned by most of the civilised world. The poor get welfare, the rich get rebates. It all amounts to the same thing. The closer you get to the edges of the spectrum, the worse that model becomes. It's only sustainable if everyone is a middle-of-the-road middle-class middle-income person.
So, we've patched the system, to allow for as many extremes as we can. Benefits, rebates, tax relief, price-capping, spending-capping, etc. These are all designed to add enough controls so that the economic model can still function for the majority of people. (It still doesn't work, never mind well, for some. But the numbers are small enough that society doesn't feel the need to push through further patches, to an already patch-work system.)
So, how does this apply to copyright and fair compensation for work done? Simple. The same logic applies. The larger your target market, the harder it is to find a system that is both equitable and maximal. The two run counter to each other. The less equitable the system is, the more rebellious the market is likely to become. The less market-share you have, the less compensation you receive.
The result? You have to choose how to optimise that equation for what you want. A rebellious market, where authoritarian rules are required to generate revenue? A happy market that pays nothing, unless it feels like it? Somewhere between the two, perhaps?
However, this generates its own problems. If two people have different systems, then the generic exchange mechanism we happen to call "money" has unequal value, depending on where you are. As a result, it ceases to be useful as an exchange system. It's simply too variable. The reason coins were introduced in the first place, is that the value could be fixed, relative to something. Gold, or other precious metals, usually. Today, it's fixed by the market. So, by having many incompatiable markets, you cease to have a meaningful currency.
This is further complicated by the fact that individual markets fluctuate their price, according to demand. More demand, higher price. Extreme forms of this are termed "price gouging", and are frowned upon, but it's rare anyone does anything about it.
A crude example of price gouging and why it is frowned upon might be a gas station with a look-out post. If it looks like lots of vehicles need gas, then electronically add 25 cents to the pumps. If there are only a few, then try and steal their custom by dropping 25 cents before they get there.
A gas station that did that would certainly make a lot of extra money. Shortly before an angry mob ripped the place apart.
Another example of market failure can be seen by looking at wages for different occupations. Since wages must reflect revenue (you can't pay people with money you don't have), the higher the wage, the less accessible the fruits of that particular profession, and vice versa.
Low-end restraunt work is paid the least. It's often below minimum wage, on the grounds that "tips can make up the rest". Translated: If you need money badly enough to serve a bunch of arrogant snobs, you'll just have to get it from them, 'cos we don't give a damn. Food is cheap and jobs are cheaper.
Next comes fast-food places, where minimum wage is actually respected. Sometimes. It's still not enough to pay for edible food AND adequate housing, but, hey, you can't charge customers any more, or there won't be any.
Then, we'll skip a bunch of careers and move onto computer programming. Easy stuff (such as trouble-shooting, web-page design, etc) is usually paid enough to live on, so long as you never get sick, have an accident, etc.
More serious programming is genrally paid good money. $50,000 - $500,000 is the typical price bracket, here, but here comes the problem. To pay even one person that much, you need to be making that much and more! That means, programmers good enough to produce good programs will create expensive programs.
So? So, if you want reliability and stability, but you're on a limited budget, don't go for anything digital. Analogue is cheaper, with better results, at the low-end.
The consequence of this? GOOD computer products will remain (for now) in the hands of the elite, and they have absolutely no interest in changing that, any time soon.
Free (as in Free Speech) software destabilises this entire arrangement, and allows someone flipping hamburgers to also flip bits.
Free (as in Free Beer) software, which need not be the same thing as above, also destabilises the market, in that it reduces the market value of those elite software programmers to about equal to that of a hamburger flipper.
The market relies on some universally-accepted constant, and each of the above two alternatives destroy one such constant in the existing "Free Market" economy.
If you want an alternative, find new constants. Preferably ones that don't need so many patches. It's the only long-term solution. Anything else is a temporary fix.