To push the analogy to the limit - no, putting the trash can by the door doesn't stop 100% of the people, but for the 95% of the people who just don't want to touch the door with their hands, it does.
Likewise, making content easy to purchase won't stop 100% of the pirates who can afford to pay for their shows, but for the 95% of us who can, and just want to watch Game of Thrones, and are more than happy to buy it from iTunes, it will capture our revenue.
If I install the camera, I will catch 99.9% and know who is so unconcerned with our maintenance workers. In a pragmatic world that is an acceptable solution. It would probably be a good idea to find out who those people are so you know not to trust them with doing anything that is not convenient.
It may be a solution, superficially, but only to the problem that you have outlined. If you make it your goal to eliminate "all paper thrown on the floor", why not go for 100% and get rid of the paper towels in the first place?
The question is not how to get rid of people throwing paper on the ground, or how to guilt the remaining careless ones into throwing theirs in the bin. The question is actually - what is the most cost-effective solution to manage the problem: Having to spend energy on peoples carelessness.
If putting a bin there catches 95% of the paper towels that were thrown on the ground before, that's as perfect as you could wish it to be. Those further 5% (or 4.99%) will cost you so much time, money and effort that once they do achieve your goal, you will surely ask yourself whether you would have been just as OK with 95%.
That's the important element in the "Moral" vs "Prgamatic" scenario - how much are we spending in time, energy, collateral damage in trying to be "right." In the case of the bathroom (war on drugs, anti-piracy, etc..) - not only are we now spending money on a camera, monitoring it, following-up, firing people - we are also invading people's privacy, impacting employee morale. Yes - it's true, taken to the logical conclusion - all of these moral victories can be one, should we be willing to go to extremes to demonstrate we are "right" - but at the end of the day, what did it that moral victory end up costing us?
So - in Portgual, and British Columbia - Heroin Addiction is now treated as a health issue. Government actually supports safe injection sites in Vancouver. They might have lost the "Moral" victory, but drug overdoses have effectively ceased. Giving in to all those employees in the bathroom who are lazy, might have been ceding the moral victory, but for the price of a move of the garbage can, the paper issue was handled.
We are, of course, actually talking about intellectual property, and the mechanism by which the media industry can extract maximal profits, without regard to their own moral position - iTunes Match is a nice first step - recognize that yes, their may be some people with illegitimately acquired content - so, give them the highest quality version of it, and charge them $25/year for the service.
Once you realize the actual goal is not moral superiority, but the pragmatic end-game, all sorts of opportunities open up.
Likewise, making content easy to purchase won't stop 100% of the pirates who can afford to pay for their shows, but for the 95% of us who can, and just want to watch Game of Thrones, and are more than happy to buy it from iTunes, it will capture our revenue.