Ethics v. Economy

"The people who have been led to believe that file sharing can be stopped with minimal intrusion are basically smoking crack."

In Pirate leader Falkvinge: "Our enemy has no intellectual capital to bring to the battle" Rick Falkvinge, the founder and leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, compares two different sides of the intellectual property debate. On one side, there is an economic component and a financial incentive when considering laws and policies regarding IP. On the other hand, IP related issues stir up debate from a moral/ethical standpoint. Falkvinge notes, "Early on in the debate, we dropped the economic arguments altogether and focused entirely on civil liberties and the right to privacy. This has proven to be a winning strategy with my keynote "Copyright Regime. vs. Civil Liberties" being praised as groundbreaking." The economic reports, according to Falkvinge, are debatable, contradictory, abundant, and ultimately it becomes a matter of credibility. The civil liberties and moral argument, is often not debatable. 

As we enter an increasingly surveillanced, "Big Brother" society, the issues of civil liberties and privacy have become more heated/readily discussed and debated issues. However, just as the Internet brings up new issues concerning privacy and surveillance, it also changes the business of media and the economic institutions/practices we are accustomed to. Is it okay/moral/ethical/justifiable/intelligent to consider and debate IP related issues on solely a moral and ethical platform based on the idea of civil liberties, or do we need to look more closely into the economic/financial side? 

I would argue, that yes, there more certainly is an ethical and moral aspect of IP that is difficult to debate, but the economic argument is often overlooked.