Well first his metaphor doesn't really hold weight. Selling a Used Book is a one-to-one transaction in which the receiver is getting a less than perfect copy. Putting an e-book on a p2p network is a one-to-many transaction that transmits a perfect copy each time.

But that doesn't necessarily invalidate his overall point.

As far as his larger point is concerned I don't think I can say he's right or wrong. What I can say is he's not really looking at the deeper issues.

The real issue behind piracy is societal values. Those who advocate this opinion are basically saying people only have the right to profit from their creations to recover their costs. Beyond that the content belongs to society. That's the only justification for piracy (since you're arguing the cost of distribution is so low the user doesn't need to be compensated for it)

You can dress that up with arguments about fans loving artists and giving them additional revenue streams but since those additional revenue streams are separate transactions that may or may not occur you can't use them as justification for not paying an artist initially for his/her creation.

Beyond that there's the issue of choice. Even if all the pro-piracy arguments are true there will be some artists who simply don't want their work pirated. Even if it's irrational (look at artists like AC/DC who still refuse to sell their music digitally). By imposing piracy on those artists you're again saying their art belongs to society once created.

So that brings us back to the question of societal values. Do we as a society believe content should belong to the entire society upon creation or does it belong to the creator who can choose to distribute it in the way they see fit (even if that means handing it over to a record company or some other corporate entity)?