> Elaborate to me how people copying software that has been released OSS has anything to do with copyright infringement of software that the authors want their efforts to be paid for?
It has nothing to do with that. But your argument seems to be based on the assumption that if people won't get paid, software won't get developed. At least that's how I read this:
> One the one hand, it costs money to produce IP. Silly patents notwithstanding, which are more a failing of the current patent office implementation, it isn't cheap to develop these ideas any more. Someone has to pay under our current system.
"Someone has to pay under our current system". The whole point of the argument here is that the current system is outdated, and there's nothing intrinsically right about it, as you keep implying. You said authors "want their efforts to be paid for". I also want a pony, but I'm not getting one. Claiming it is wrong that those authors don't get paid is just an arbitary choice of ethics. The only real argument for this particular choice of ethics is that if they didn't get paid, they wouldn't make software, and society would suffer. And that's what I'm arguing against, because even if they didn't have the opportunity to charge for copyrighted software, people would still make software.
But just to clear things up, could you specify if it's wrong that software authors don't get paid because: