You did not get my point. You wrote:
In a "pay what ever you want" system that allows 0 as the price to pay,
putting the content in P2P networks loose it's sense if you seek for
obtaining the data gratis.
My follow-up was:
Then, why would a site proposing copies of the same work at a price make any
more sense?
I mean, according to your own argument, "if you seek for obtaining the data"
(gratis or not), you would then take it from the author's site.
I actually do not agree with your argument. The price is not everything. For
instance, most of us go buy food in supermarkets even if farmers sell the
same food (actually a fresher food) for a much smaller price. But it is
faster to go to the supermarket, there is more choice (of food and beyond
food), etc. The same holds for the distribution of immaterial works. For
instance, Popcorn time is more convenient than using a Web browser and a
regular BitTorrent client (that downloads the pieces in any order) or than
renting a DVD in a local store.
My main point in my initial post was this one:
Enabling or disabling business models does not make a license more or less
ethical.
