This debate on this is an old one. You're talking about the two as if they both form in a vacume, but in reality, that is not the case.

The biggest problem (and the one happening here) is that people don't take into account the labor taken to create "non-rivalrous" goods. Just because a good can be duplicated without "significant loss" to the original work doesn't mean that labor was not expended creating the original work. Labor that that author or creator should be compesated for in a manor of their choosing, by those willing to use the work.

With rivalrous goods, only a fraction of the price is the material used to make the good. A large portion of the price often is the labor involved, be that direct labor or indirect (eg. machine maintenance). Yet when the material used to make a good is virtual, or so cheep as to not register, for some reason people feel it's ok to duplicate without compensating for that initial labor.

If one lived in a utopia (like star trek) where artists get a stipend from the government to create non-rivalrious goods, then free duplication would be an acceptable thing. In most of the world however, even digitally duplicatable works have to be able to support the person(s) who put the labor in to initially create them. Non-rivalrous goods don't simply come into being on their own. They take time and effort to create initially. And if the author of a piece of work sets a value on that labor and seeks compensation for it, and others circumvent that by duplicating the piece without compensating the author, that's morally (and in many places criminally) wrong.

Yes, that's true, which is where the market comes into play. If you charge too much, nobody will buy, and you will be effectively forced to reduce your rates to sell. If you charge to little, you may not make back enough to continue the endeavor, or repay the initial investment.

The problem with piracy is that it is exactly one group forcing their views on the other. By stealing/duplicating/pirating goods (or converting them to a non-rivalrous form to duplicate) they are effectively forcing their view on the author that their labor is worth nothing, regardless of the price the author may want to set on those goods to compensate for the labor and time spent.

I'm sure it is until you're in a situation where you lack food, and took on work to improve GPL based code in exchange for compensation that then was not forthcoming. In that case, it is taking the food out of your mouth. That's the exact situation we're discussing here. Would you still consider it an orthogonal issue when it's your ability to have food that's in the balance?

One of the key reasons I'm sensitive on this subject is because what I do for a living focuses on creating what you would call "non-rivalrous" goods. But I can assure you, just because something is digital doesn't mean it has no value, nor does it mean there's no rivalry. That, and the fact that I like to eat and have a place to live, incites me to speak when others are justifying or advocating the the concept that creators of such goods don't deserve compensation.

I share these hopes, but know that in reality the odds of the later hope (him being employed because of his work here) is rather slim. Sadly, such things happen rarely enough that when it does happen it's pretty big news.