Fleet Foxes thank piracy for their success

But we need to remember why this model works. Programming is a relatively highly paid job. A programmer who works for a decade or so can afford the opportunity cost of doing unpaid work. The average musician, on the other hand, works at a pub!

Second, look at who are the purchasers of software support. These are invariably companies with deep pockets. Had they not purchased the open-source solution (which is cheap on account of that good samaritan programmer's efforts!) they would have purchased the equivalent closed-source solution, at a greater cost. Compare this with merch in music: the customers here are just individual consumers. And the typical pattern here is you go to a gig, and the first chunk of your money goes to your ticket, next to drinks, and if you have money left over, then you might buy a t-shirt (I'm musician, and was told by a professional manager [she works for the company that manages Amy Winehouse] NOT to buy excessive amount of merch -- she said that it was the weakest link; the one thing the customers really could afford to do without).

I agree with your second point regarding the difficulty of making money doing original music. It really saddens me, but c'est la vie I guess: not everyone loves music, and live music at that, as much as me. Demand is what it is. But what really galls me is filesharing, because in that case, the price is artificially zero. It is zero because there is not property enforcement. And that, frankly, sucks.

Err, no. I don't see how you make that deduction. I would agree that there have been many cases where musicians haven't gotten the best possible bargain, and there are indeed some particularly egregious cases. Still, there is plenty of law (e.g. undue influence) and precedent in place to protect musicians at least from egregiously unfair contracts.