A) If you're serious about the music, like the academics whom you mentioned, then it's actually relevant if you want to be taken seriously. Whether or not that is a good thing is another story.
B) I never implied sampling was bad or anything. (Go Plastic is amazing, of course, but I sometimes think that it would be even cooler if Tom didn't use other people's samples and just went full autistic with his own.) My criticism was mainly directed towards people who rely heavily on other people's samples (Burial etc.). I get it that there are scenes like vaporwave etc. but I still think that it's laziness or maybe just not giving a shit about what you are doing..
C) That is the "problem". Today everything is super-available and that of course makes it harder to be more original. That's why you have to work even harder to make something relatively new (nothing is 100% original, we know that). And using these "sample packs" is definitely not less lazy than creating your own samples from scratch (by recording, by using computer...) and manipulating them.
My criticism was aimed at people who are heavily using other people's samples and contribute very little or not at all. Then again I think that the people whom you mentioned don't really give a shit about how people call them.
Yeah okay informatically speaking every sound is a collection of samples, but that is a microscopic approach, and I wasn't referring to that kind of samples. By "everyone samples..." I meant people who sample other people's tracks. Here by samples I mean "parts of tracks that can range in duration from the order of say 1 second to the order of say 10 minutes or more, that are used in other person's track, and may or may not be modulated in a certain way, but are still clearly recognizable." This approach is a macroscopic approach when observed from the informatic point of view.