Your argument is the same as used by the IRS.
The reason tax compliance is so poor (and it is, btw, VERY poor) is mostly because the code is not fair.
Most people are honest and will pay their fair share...but when it becomes confiscatory taxes, folks will not comply.
Just like the music that costs $17 per CD.
If they'd change the price to a more reasonable figure and distribute it in a way that would conform to today's technology, they'd have a hit. But they refuse to do it, and it will be the death of them.
There will be smart, assertive, capable individuals that will end the industry as we know it. THey will form the new industry, and it will be a different model. That you think there is no other model is infantile.
The argument over copyright is not germane in this environment of technology. Any law you can dream up will be instantly circumvented using technology.
The only answer is a new model.
Of course, there will always be criminals. But changing the model would minimize the problem... just as making taxes fair would minimize non-compliance...folks are honest if you're fair to them.
No my argument isn't the same as that used by the IRS, no tax compliance isn't poor, and the laws of copyright are EXTREMELY fair.
And now you go for the tired old and completely worthless "it costs too much" defense. CDs have cost around $17 for 25 years, they didn't cost too much then and since then $17 isn't has dropped in actual value thanks to inflation. And even if it wasn't too much that doesn't excuse theft. You don't get to steal a car because you think the dealer is charging too much and you don't get to steal music because they're charging too much. You don't like what they're charging? Fine then live without the product until they charge what you consider to be equitable.
What the filesharers want is free product, there can never be an industry that provides it's product for free. There's only two way to get free stuff: steal it yourself (what the sharers are currently doing), and somebody else's charity. The music industry isn't going to convert to charity because there's no money in charity and industry exists to make money.
The ENTIRE arguement is about copyright, just because somebody can break the law doesn't mean there should be a law. Should we irradicate red lights because people can run the light? That's an even more pathetically stupid arguement than whining about the cost.
Change the model to what? All you thieving bootleggers keep saying they should change the model, fine lay it out: how does somebody make a living having their stuff STOLEN?! It can't be done. There is no "model" for that.
Theft is theft. Copyright violation is theft. That's the end of the discussion, anything past that is whining by people unwilling to admit to being petty thieves.