Using the library as an example is flawed logic.

In many cases libraries DO pay more for their initial copy of a book or movie because they are going to share it. However, comparing libraries with millions sharing copyrighted material for free without compensation to the artists/producers/etc. doesn't work.

As for Sure. It's called BUYING your music and movies. People have been doing it for decades. Only in the last few years did we somehow decide we were entitled to something for nothing.

As someone upthread said, you (don't) pay the price, you take your chances.

I don't feel all that sorry for the woman in Dayton. She got something for free (some 6000 songs). Now if she pays even half that much (assuming .99 cents per song for even the cheapest music legally) she got off easy right?