Stallman is a fanatic about defending his (and only his) interpretations of rights and what is ethical behavior in regards to digital distribution. He also happens to engage in quixotic quests (e.g. renaming "Linux" as "GNU/Linux") and, last I heard, doesn't place much value in compromise. I haven't found much to admire about his opinions.
As to his arguments:
• The technical ability to distribute digital content at low cost, or the human tendency to "share," does not, in and of itself, confer the legal or moral right to infringe copyright.
• Musicians willingly and knowingly enter into contracts with record companies. If an artist doesn't hire a lawyer to thoroughly review the contract and/or gets a raw deal, it is their own fault (unless there is actual criminal misconduct involved). It is also far easier today to self-publish and self-distribute your own works to a global audience, at almost no cost, than at any time in history.
• The purpose of copyright is not just to encourage artists, it is also to protect the integrity of the artists' / distributor's / publisher's work and commercial interests. As per usual, Stallman's recommendations to fund artists are -- at best -- hopelessly idealistic. (However, I fully support an artists' or publisher's right to try alternate distribution models, whether commercial or non-commercial in origin.)
• Stallman does not appear to recognize that an alternative to what he calls the "War on Sharing" is to offer better options than the infringing methods. E.g. consistent quality (which commercial ebooks have yet to offer
), proper formatting, customer service, a system to distribute royalties and so forth.
I agree that the music industry was and is heavy-handed, in many cases to the detriment of their cause of protecting the work of artists. The book companies (as far as I know) have yet to use similarly draconian tactics. However, Stallman seems to also go against the idea of paying for any digital download whatsoever, regardless of the use of DRM, which (if that is a correct interpretation) strikes me as.... difficult to defend.