The copyright holder is a third party to the conversation between someone publishing infringing material and the person downloading the material. The copyright holder wants the state to prevent this conversation, just as a censorious churchlady wants to prevent the conversation between a porn distributor and porn reader. You may think the copyright holder is a just censor.
Does anyone claim the Blu-ray/HD-DVD battle does g
For example, by providing employment opportunities for more engineers? I don't think so. The broken window fallacy isn't being invoked by anyone here, though I'm glad you're aware of it so you can call it out when it is used, which is frequently.
If I read the article correctly government employees are worried about their functions being "outsourced" to the private sector -- typical of government employees worldwide. No indication of worry about outsourcing to Bangladesh or wherever.
It'll probably be awhile, but I look forward to the day when wages have risen enough in India and infrastructure good enough in even poorer locales to make outsourcing from India a boon.
That won't be "poetic justice" or "karma is a bitch", that'll be good for both India and wherever Indians outsource work to.
Jealousy is "I wish I had what X has -- let's see how I can steal it." Envy is "I don't have what X has -- let's see how I can destroy it." Obviously envy is more destructive, as it can only be negative sum.
No, the present value of revenues collected decades from now is the same for anyone (modulo different individual discount rates) -- a tiny fraction of the value of revenues collected now. Participation by investors doesn't change the arguments for or against perpetual copyright at all.