But the newspaper analogy points to the logical result of making music available legitimately: once you put your coins into the newspaper vending box on the corner, you can take as many papers as you want and run around dispensing them willy-nilly as you see fit.

There seems to be little problem with this, as the system has been used for many years. The key for the publishers is collecting the payment to get the box open in the first place. This would seem to be analagous with some kind of licensing system: get the first payment, then don't worry about it.

Finally, Akst's answer of taking away online anonymity is exactly reversing cause and effect, cart and horse, problem and remedy. The rise of open Wi-Fi is making it impossible to trace individual users - the move is inexorably toward GREATER privacy online rather than lesser, and this is a greater public good than fanatically defending intellectual property rights anyway. Creators should be paid, the Internet should remain open, some kind of flat fee, all you can eat system fulfills both needs. In the words of Jim Griffin:

Flat fees and feels free go hand-in-hand, creating a world of compensation and collaboration. We hold much more in our open hands than we ever could in the closed-fist of so-called intellectual property. Finding the balance is the key and pricing should be our focus.

It is fine to tell people what they shouldn't do, but even when you are right, if you don't give them a reasonable, attractive alternative, you're just shouting into the wind.

For another view, see here.