Isn't Media a Commodity?

Benkler and Castells only briefly touch on something we have also briefly discussed in class, the topic of p2p sharing, especially in terms of (free) music, movie, and TV downloads. While I'm human and of course want something free if I can get it, the trend of free file sharing and pirated movies, music, software, etc. does bother me. I suppose it is a human trait to want to keep your money and not spend it if you don't have to. After all you worked hard for that money, so if you can avoid spending it on movies, music, etc. shouldn't you?
However, someone else worked hard to produce that media so why do we believe they should just give it away for free? We wouldn't expect a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk for free just because we don't want to have to pay for it. Now there are the arguments that recording companies and studios make so much money off of their products, which it is implied, is undeserved (and I'm not getting into the unfair payment distributions, that's a whole other issue), so why does it matter if we download it for free? But does anyone really think if all media was either produced by small independent labels/companies, who didn't take big profits, or even self-produced it that there wouldn't be such a proliferation of p2p sharing? I seriously doubt it. This system could also make it harder for the small upstart media companies because people have gotten used to not paying for their media and won't want to start just because its a small company trying to get off the ground and make a profit.
We've seen this trend with newspapers too. People don't want to pay for online subscriptions (full disclaimer, I'm totally guilty of this too) and so the companies have to turn to the dwindling ad revenues to keep their sites and sometimes the entire paper afloat.
People still get annoyed if they have to wait through commercials for free online content, as we've discussed in class. However, someone has to pay for the work to be done. If no one pays musicians, writers, actors, directors to produce the media, they're going to find another job that will pay them and our media supply will decline. They might continue to produce media on the side because they like it, but it won't be of the same quantity and quality as if they could produce it for a full-time job.
While there are many issues involved in this discussion, to me, one of the main points it boils down to, is why do we think its ok to not pay media producers for their time, effort, and products? Isn't it a commodity just like everything else we pay for?

Communication: Responsibility or Commodity?

One of the things that Hanson discusses in Chapter 3 different media systems across the globe (which we also learned about in earlier readings). Hanson quotes Dizard who said that in most of the world telecommunications systems were considered "a government responsibility, not a market commodity". Most countries had some form of nationalized or government monopolized telecommunications systems comprising, post, telegraph, and telephone services (PTT). However in the US the postal service was public and telegraph and telephone service was monopolized by AT&T until the 1980's. So the United States made the telecommunications sector a market commodity. We've seen this trend continued with some countries having nationalized news networks (BBC in the UK) and some having private networks only (obviously the US).
So what is communication? Does a government have a responsibility to provide an infrastructure of postal service, (previously) telegraph and telephone lines/service, and now even television and internet? Or should it all be bought and sold on the free market?
In the case of the US the overall postal service is government run (USPS), but it does have shipping competition from UPS, FedEx and other companies (mainly just for packages and special types of mail). In essence we have a mixed socialized and privatized postal system. In a country that seems so opposed to socialization (as seen in the recent health care debate) why have we allowed our postal service to remain government run? Surely the free market would create a more efficient system (who doesn't hate waiting at the post office?) with more competitive prices (44 cents to mail a letter 3,000 miles from New York to California? Outrageous!).
Now I haven't researched the post office history (I guess I'll have to visit that museum at the Smithsonian...), but it could be that the USPS remains because that's just the way it's always been and we're too lazy to change it. Or maybe, on some level we do believe that communication is a government responsibility (and maybe even a public right?) and not just a free market commodity. National communications is essential to the functioning of our modern society, without it pretty much nothing we have today would be possible.
Now I'm not saying that every communication system should be government run, maybe it would be better maybe not (is there really that much of a difference and need for so many telephone companies or internet providers?). Of course there are many concerns about state-run communications, such as censorship of the internet in China, which I'm against. However as I've said before I'm not a fan of huge transnational conglomerate corporations running communications either. There's a risk of censorship and bias there as well, take the recent case of certain books, already purchased, being removed from customers' Kindle devices by Amazon. While the government should in theory have the best interests of the people in mind, it often values its own interests more. Corporations aren't even ideally supposed to have the best interest of the consumer in mind, their goal is to maximize profits, so how can we trust them to give us the best technology/prices/service/information possible either? (Although I do acknowledge in theory they should keep customers happy to keep them, but how often do we hear of consumers getting screwed over by big companies?)
I don't have the answers to this debate. I'm not sure which, if either, of the systems would work better. Maybe everything should be like PBS with some government backing and public contributions (although that's unlikely to succeed). The central question seems to remain; is communication a responsibility of the government or a market commodity?