From the perspective of the Broken Window Fallacy, though, buying a new window is equivalent to buying a book. Need is not a component of the fallacy whatsoever. Thus, your final statement is incorrect. pravda was not pointing out anything; the fallacy is not applicable to this situation.
pravda did not point that out. pravda claimed zizee was using the Broken Window Fallacy. zizee's argument and your summarization of it are not examples of the fallacy. Nor is situation 2 in your post above. The fallacy has nothing to do with something being useful or necessary.
The broken window just doesn't strike me as a central part of the broken window fallacy. To me, the important part is that people see the glazier getting money in exchange for a service, and think that economics is happening and this is a good thing; but they don't see that if the glazier didn't get that money, the bookseller would.
So I'd say that yeah, zizee is committing the broken window fallacy, even if the broken window itself has no analogous component in vis reasoning.
(But I'm not going to argue about it if you continue to disagree. That would be a profoundly boring argument.)
