But pg's argument is prescriptive. For example, it includes the question "Should people not be able to charge for content?" and then gives a (conditional) answer.
There's nothing wrong with writing a prescriptive essay; it doesn't make it in any sense weaker. But it is prescriptive, and Rob's argument here is specifically with the prescriptive part of the argument--in other words, he argues that music is not so much like smells that it supports the overall prescription pg is making.
I think it is prescriptive for the distributor and creators, but descriptive for consumers. He is not admonishing consumers to pirate, as it seems many have misunderstood, he just describes what is happening and what will happen with information. But he asks distributors and creators to change and adapt to a new way of doing things.
The original blog didn't claim pg was encouraging piracy directly, so my post was a bit off topic, but I wrote it because I found when discussing this essay/talk with others, many tend to draw that conclusion.
I do agree that pg's essay was not encouraging piracy. Its main thrust was prescriptive with respect to public policy-- that means prescriptive to legislators, voters, and to a degree industry. Rob's essay, as I understand it, disagrees on the policy advice.
There's nothing wrong with writing a prescriptive essay; it doesn't make it in any sense weaker. But it is prescriptive, and Rob's argument here is specifically with the prescriptive part of the argument--in other words, he argues that music is not so much like smells that it supports the overall prescription pg is making.