I agree it depends on the cost. If it literately meant I would lose my home if I did not pay the thief then I definitely would pay him/her. But as to your argu

I agree it depends on the cost. If it literately meant I would lose my home if I did not pay the thief then I definitely would pay him/her. But as to your argument about "everyone", it's more about diminishing this market rather than effacing it. I doubt any market can be completely effaced. But the real tipping point comes when a majority of people believe that they can or cannot affect this market. If people accept they cannot alter things, the market will flourish through acquiescence. If people accept they can affect the market, and encourage others to do the same, then they will; If you can get enough people to believe they can do something, then they will do that something through the sheer force of community action. If the web community accepts they more or less must pay thieves who do this then the market, fuelled by the thieves' acknowledgement of this, will flourish. If the community decides they will not pay thieves who have managed to do this then the thieves will eventually realise that this market has diminished. Of course, this requires a community effort and most people will not think of the wider implications of their, albeit beneficial to themselves, actions.