That is a description of technological advance. Means of accessing and communication information is improved, and in general that is most probably a gain. It di

That is a description of technological advance. Means of accessing and communication information is improved, and in general that is most probably a gain. It disrupts some people expecting to continue as before, and that is bad. But we do not ultimately want to restrict gains from invention for the sake of a few temporary losers. We want to have some more general support for such 'casualties', and let everyone move forward in exploring innovation. It all comes down to the basic physical limitations. Copying may be illegal, but there is no physical loss -- in fact the opposite, it is beneficial. We ideally want the economic system to evolve toward fully realising the resources available. That means copying is free, and everyone should benefit from it as much as they like. And production is scarce and has costs, hence commands a price in a market (and in a better form of market would then be used according to need). Of course, we may or may not, in various ways, be able to reach that ideal. But a law -- like copyright -- that restricts us from using resources that are otherwise free is not justified in a fundamental way. It is there only pragmatically, to get the best out of practical limitations. It must not obstruct us from finding other ways.