Your argument is effectively an ad populum, so I tried to address the parts that could be salvaged. What people do doesn't define what is right or wrong, nor i

Your argument is effectively an ad populum, so I tried to address the parts that could be salvaged. What people do doesn't define what is right or wrong, nor is that how the social contract operates. Besides, the fact that piracy is rampant is a demonstration of copyright's necessity. If the works were so worthless that trying to charge for their consumption would be pointless, then why are so many people determined to illicitly gain access? And if the works would be made anyway, why weren't they until it was profitable to do so? The argument you're making dies on a number of fronts, but the one I tried to address originally was the only legitimate line of inquiry. Your ad populum redefinition of the social contract doesn't work, as what is good/bad doesn't get voted on or collectively decided. The best rational argument is what wins in an ethics conversation.