Fair point — I was being a bit facetious — but the fact remains that if a critical enough mass of people steal/copy Windows, it’s no longer economically viable. Every user who hasn’t paid for it is being subsidized by those who have.

Windows may not be the best example since it’s so massively profitable, and sells a lot to enterprise customers and OEMs who won’t pirate it. That said, I suspect the business case for producing high-budget, non-mass-market consumer content (say, HBO shows) is starting to tip. How many people pirate Game of Thrones for every one that pays for it?

In the end, we live in a capitalist society — the people making software, movies, music, books, etc. have to get paid for the stuff be made.

So MS would announce that it is no longer making Windows, and companies would then have to decide whether they want to stay in business by moving to another OS or not. I'm sorry, but I think there is a STRONG argument that if something can be obtained easily for free, or worse can be obtained MORE easily for free, then trying to defend the model by making free illegal is much like trying to make people pay a wave tax or it's illegal for them to touch the water at the beach...

"Wave tax"... not bad. I've been trying to work out an analogy myself, flush-right law. Imagine it, we could set up a paradigm in which the plumber who installs a toilet includes a little gadget that makes sure you don't flush a toilet without buying a flush-right from him by authorizing a little payment. Call the technology a Effluent Rights Management (ERM) system. It would need to be complemented, of course, with some legislation making it illegal to circumvent ERM, etc, etc, wouldn't want flush thieves simply taking the devices off their toilets.

And there it is, an artificial market created through technology and legislation, just like the copyright market. I'm sure plumbers would be eager to point out the virtues of having such a system.

They don't have to make that stuff. They can try to find something else to do instead.

If there was legitimately no demand for these products, then sure, they should move on and make something else instead. But there is a demand for them — it’s just that many of the people consuming it are stealing it. This is what laws are there for.

Again, I know this analogy isn’t perfect, but what you’ve said is not all that different from telling a shop owner who was robbed that maybe he should do something else instead.

We're talking about large-scale sharing of movies and software, not 'stealing'. It isn't desirable or practical to have the government regulate the Internet and punish offenders to stop this sharing, so content owners are going to have to adapt.

A more suitable analogy would be to a bookstore owner who's struggling because of (legal) Kindle downloads. Sucks for him, but time marches forwards. Perhaps he should partially convert to a coffee shop or similar.

The word "stealing" is an emotive slogan, not a neutral or accurate description. You must realise that by using it you make yourself appear partisan. That diminishes the impact of any point you are trying to make.

Yeah, it's fine to steal from stores because they budget for it, it's fine to steal from people's homes because they have insurance, etc. Nobody loses!