The sheer majority of centralized services operate on content generated and submitted by users simply looking to express themselves and communicate with others, and do not reimburse them. I explicitly used Wikipedia because it's a very pointed result of specifically how much money is required solely due to terrible technology.

As for the funding of big budget films and the like, I'm not terribly worried. First, they have an awful lot of fat to trim, like all those lawyers and lobbyists they hire in an attempt to put the Internet genie back in the bottle, and that whole parallel management chain of Orwellian-named "producers".

But more importantly, we're already in a post-copyright world on that front. You accept that any information can be freely propagated, and that is just a new rule of the game, and you move on. You sell things like the experience of going to a movie theatre, concert venue, and physical merchandise. You explicitly appeal for fans to directly support you, and you take preorders instead of doing big-money gambles. Things about this model aren't ideal, but it's just how it is going to be.

You still didn't answer the question.

While there is a large quantity of user-generated IP out there, it is not the majority of what is being torrented, nor do the content holders of user-generated content have any generation cost.

Also, the lobbying, legal fees, and other "fat" costs that you allude to are necessary for larger organizations to survive, less they become subject to rent-seeking by their competition, who do participate in the agency behavior. Even if Adobe were to never spend a dime on lawyers or lobbyists again, would they no longer have to pay software engineers too?

Again, for most content companies that have IP generation costs, how do you propose that they distribute the costs?

How does torrenting help solve the problem with the IP generation cost, considering you are claiming it's the future?

You're harping on a completely different subject from what I was talking about, and while I also have a strong opinion on it, you're attempting to muddle the two into one general ball of "ownership is the only option" without looking at the details of each one.

Alas, I directly answered your question in my last paragraph, by telling you how to figure out how to distribute exotic-bit-combination "generation costs":

> You accept that any information can be freely propagated, and that is just a new rule of the game, and you move on... Things about this model aren't ideal, but it's just how it is going to be.

In Adobe's case, they can strongarm prominent obviously-using businesses with some reduced notion of commercial copyright (as every software vendor has basically been doing for the past decade), set up support contracts that give access to prerelease features (currently works well for smaller, more expensive niches), or (as they're starting to do) further lock down their software by moving to a server-side model and buy time until a Free competitor gets good enough to overrule their inconvenience. If they were just starting off, asking for donations would also work, but clearly at this point they have way too much overhead for that.

Also note that if their product is deprecated by something else, then under the current regime it is considered appropriate that their costs are never recovered. Conversely, at some point their costs have been completely recovered yet they keep right on seeking rent.