OK, there may be somewhat of a disconnect. On the other hand, that disconnect is irrelevant to my point. I'm only saying that you can't argue from what is to what should be. Whether it's the social code or the law, pointing out that it's currently in favor of copyright infringement doesn't prove anything about whether it should be in favor of copyright infringement.

The should, however, is derived from the is. Our prescriptive laws are, at least in theory, derived from descriptions of reality. Thus do we claim contraception should be legal. Thus do we claim interracial marriage should be legal. These rights are fought for; granted from first principles, but also from social realities. "All men are created equal" was only taken to include blacks after the Civil War.

So too must the public attitude towards filesharing define our laws surrounding it. The majority of people have, without caveat, expressed through their actions their belief that filesharing is, and should be, a normal and accepted part of society. This may rankle those whose paychecks are predicated upon the status quo, but it doesn't affect our shifting morals. We are a people who accept and embrace "copyright infringement". It is only once this reality is accepted that the content industry may move forwards.

Yes, but not the tautological is. "People should not be sued for their entire worth for pirating songs," isn't derived from, "People like to pirate songs." It's derived from, "punishment should be equitable," "pirating a few songs isn't that big of a deal," and "that's scary." And those are derived from even further beliefs.

The important question is, if you take the root beliefs and walk back up the tree, do all of the beliefs come to an overall support of free copying? Then you do that in aggregate for society, taking into account uncomfortable truths about the economics of music production and advertising where necessary and on a level individuals won't when they derive their inevitable personal free-riding preferences. Going from high level feeling to high level feeling ("I like file sharing" -> "file sharing is right") does not work. Almost everyone says that they would prefer to pay less tax too.

To put it another way, there are plenty of things people would do if they could get away with it. Not paying taxes, driving as fast as they want, tossing cigarette butts wherever, etc. Your exact argumentation could be used to say, "Society's views about these activities need to change," but that's not actually the case. All you are observing is that people will take advantage of situations where they can get away with something, even if it's not ultimately good for society as a whole. In no way do I accept the norms that you're deriving from this. Rather, I should say that I don't accept the way you are deriving them. My personal jury is still out on whether I think filesharing is a problem that needs to be addressed more or less forcefully.