There are lots of points to address in there. First of all, it is a common misconception that piracy adversely affects sales. It doesn't. Music piracy is still a growing phenomenon, and record sales went up in 2011. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 broke Avatar's record for the fastest media product to reach $1 billion in sales, and it is also the most heavily pirated game.

Pirates basically come in two types. Some people download things to test them out before purchasing. Others really do just want to get something for free. That second group is the reason downloading is vilified so by organizations like the RIAA and MPAA, but they really can't be counted as lost sales. Those people were never going to buy whatever they downloaded anyway. They'll take it if they can get it for free, but they were never going to be potential customers. By cracking down on piracy however, the industries are ignoring the first group, the "try before you buy" pirates and believe it or not, that is a significant demographic. There are many people who might think "that artist's single is decent, but I don't want to buy the album if it's the only good song on it" or "that game looks pretty cool, but $60 is too much to pay without knowing for sure." Without piracy, those are actually customers lost.

There is a correlation between piracy and sales, but it's not what the industries would like you to believe. As piracy goes up, sales go up. The most heavily pirated items are also the best-sellers.

As for independent artists (and any but the biggest name musicians and bands for that matter) record sales are not the way to earn a living. I know several independent artists and am even related to a few of them, and all of them are happy if their stuff gets downloaded because it means more potential exposure. The keys to surviving as a musical act are marketing yourself and your music to sell more tickets at more venues. Live performances are where the real money is at.

Yes, newspapers are a dying medium. If they displayed any of those professional qualifications, maybe I would be sorry to see them go. As it is, why would I pay to read biased day-old stories riddled with grammatical errors when I can read biased up-to-the-minute stories riddled with grammatical errors for free? And yes, as you mentioned, the role of the press pretty much is damned. With the rise of social networking, the public is the press.

And now, books. Piracy is not the culprit in the demise of the physical bookstore. That honor belongs to giant online retailers like Amazon. A niche item probably won't be in stock at a smaller bookstore because inventory costs money. So you can go to the bookstore and have them order the item, or you could go to a site like Amazon and order it yourself, have it shipped directly to you, and probably save money in the process. For many people, it's a no-brainer.

I personally don't download books because I don't like reading ebooks. However, as I've mentioned before, I really don't see anything wrong with book pirating. I almost never buy books. If there's something I want to read, I'll get it from my local library. If they don't have it, I'll request it through an inter-library loan. So, if I could tolerate reading an ebook, what would be the difference between downloading one and using the library system? I'm going to read the book for free anyway.