My point was that this isn't creating a boost in an economy because while B makes money, A loses money. How about these startups creating something of value them selves, that they can then sell?
If art piece X is available for people to see and think about, why is artist Y not allowed to use it to create even better art? Why is company Z not allowed to figure out even better ways to monetise it?
You probably think the money lost by A is greater than the money gained by Y and Z. I think that's not true - a lot of great art is derivative, and a lot of interesting business models around art have not been explored because the incumbents (A) resist it.
You could also argue that A won't be incentivised to produce the art, but... actually, if only one country does this, that's not true.
PS: China doesn't count, yet, for two reasons: 1) it's not a western democracy with a long tradition of western-style art and copyright and a hunger to innovate on the art distribution models; 2) copyright theft is not actually legal there, it's still illegal, just loosely enforced; that prevents real legit businesses from emerging in that space.
So you think that taking for example Microsoft Word, re-package it in a new box call it "Awsome word 2011" and re-sell it at half price should be ok? Without any cost associated with the production what so ever, that would be possible. You can still invent a new distribution plattform, look at amazon for example, you just have to pitch it to the owner whose products you are going to sell, and of course pay them, that is how all trade works. How can selling someone elses work, make a profit, and not paying them be morally justified?
Regarding China, the point is that the effect on foreign relations could be similar in regards to copyright.