You are completely missing the point of this thread. Even if we morally agree with all your points, the claim is that less books will get written and that that's bad for all of us.
To rebut this, you need to either argue that this won't happen, suggest an alternative incentive for books to get written, or maybe even disagree that this result is bad.
Let's get real. Even in the era of Internet and easy copying, zillions of books are being made and sold for money, profitably. The number of books being printed has no end. This situation is harmful to society, because good quality books are hard to discover and check (in a bookstore, on a piracy site) because they are drowned in the pile of rubbish that is wasting our time.
Making books less profitable would suppress the production and make the quality stand out. A net positive for humanity.
To rebut this, you need to either argue that this won't happen, suggest an alternative incentive for books to get written, or maybe even disagree that this result is bad.