I don't think you get to decide how much the information you produce is worth to someone else. So I would refrain from using phrases like "should be rewarded" and appeals to food on the table unless you want to be mistaken for a socialist (which I know you are not, and I suppose I'm making my point too forcefully). I'm sure you want to be rewarded well enough to put food on the table, but imaging that something is wrong with the world if that doesn't happen, rather than with your business model, is a dead end. If you aspire to sell information (perhaps software) moralizing about it only creates a beggar business model (some people will feel bad and tip you). Software famously is dirt cheap and near impossible to form a business model on top of. That why SaaS took off. SaaS works by hiding the information instead of sharing it, since by sharing it you immediately lose the advantage of being the only one with it. Sorry if I am too much of a harsh realist.
Discussion
I agree that the market will ultimately decide on what information is worth, but I don't think people will voluntarily fork over their money unless there's a barrier that prevents them from getting access to it until they decide to pay up. Shareware didn't work as a business model because almost nobody ever registered the software they could get for free. Donation models rarely work unless the people are constantly hounded (and -- often -- the product withheld) until their donations add up to what the provider wants. It's not a moral question. It's a practical one. People are biologically wired to take what they can get when they can get it. If you have something valuable, you have to demand something valuable in return for it. If you offer it for free in hopes of a handout, have fun staying poor.
Thanks. English is not my native language, so it’s a bit tricky to put my point across.
I’ll give another thought into better ways of wording my point.
Btw just listened to the Nostrovia pod with you as a guest. Good stuff!