Spencer, this is an interesting premise and it obviously touches on some of the central themes from our class. That said, I'm a bit confused by two of your points:

(1) You argue that the "reality of the situation is that piracy cannot be prevented" and it is therefore a waste of resources to attempt to combat it. But, this is true of many forms of conduct that we generally agree should be unlawful. For instance, people will always murder, steal, defraud, etc. And, it surely costs a lot to address this conduct. Nevertheless, laws prohibiting this conduct are still on the books and serve valuable (indeed necessary) purposes. Another example: drugs. No one seriously argues illicit drug use and distribution can be totally eradicated, but we still have rigorous drug laws. True, there's a serious argument that some currently illegal drugs should be legalized, but (a) I don't think a particularly sound argument in favor legalization is that "people always find ways around the law so get rid of the law," and (b) legalization of drugs--like the eradication of intellectual property--is not costless. You need only ask people who destroyed their own lives (the ones who are still alive, of course) or witnessed drug addiction in others to understand why. I'm not arguing for or against a change in the currently intellectual property regimes. Rather, I think you should address this weakness--just b/c people will find a way to do X doesn't mean it's a waste of time or resources trying to prevent X.

(2) You argue that intellectual property is essentially a tool of the rich that denies access to millions. First, isn't is possible that intellectual property rights protect and reward creators who aren't part of "those who have" (as a sidenote, I'm not sure what "those who have" means--are you referring to successful artists and authors, companies like Apple and Microsoft, musicians who although not "rich" still make a comfortable living by performing and selling their copyrighted works, all of the above, none of the above? ). If a particular creator wants the masses to have unfettered access to his or her work, he or she doesn't need to copyright or patent the creation in question. On the other hand, an artist starting out may have an interest in ensuring that he or she receives a reasonable return on a creation that took tremendous investment of time, energy, and often money. Second, it's true that intellectual property rights exclude some people. But, why is exclusion bad? Does every person have the right of access to every work, invention, song, book, etc. ever created? Maybe, maybe not. I think there's an argument on each side, but, you just assert one side is true. Furthermore, where are the consequences of (or even examples of) this mass exclusion? Again, I don't doubt it's occurring, I just think some examples and a discussion of its scope would be helpful.