If one is too broke to justify or to even afford buying music, one may find a way to download it for free... else one would go slightly more old-fashioned and just burn CDs from friends' albums. Most of the "potential profit" doesn't actually exist. It's more like "theoretical profit." Yeah, charging some teenagers with six-figure lawsuits is probably going to hurt the industry and promote piracy more than anything, because then some people are going to feel like they're fighting this oppressive system. I always despised DRM. I feel rather cheated when I buy something that includes horribly designed software which is easily bypassed by pirates but makes the product inconvenient for everyone.
To pretend you can prove artists' livelihoods have been destroyed by piracy is silly. It's all theory. They took a risk and it didn't work. Maybe that would've happened with ZERO piracy just because of the economy or most people think their music sucks. Being "award-winning" doesn't necessarily mean entitlement to profits.
The issue is more complex than "just plain theft." In a lot of countries, pirated copies are the only copies available of many things. If we're talking just United States... then it still isn't necessarily theft. Again, lots of theory. I know that people try out the full product in this way before deciding if it's worth their money. How many people? You can theorize. You could argue that piracy has actually stimulated the music industry. You could argue it's bringing it to ruin.
You can argue, but you can't prove a thing, because it's not actual physical theft. There's no way to get anything near an accurate estimate of how much of what has been pirated and then not purchased, or what would've otherwise been legally purchased.
Then there's the issue of pirating things that, if they had been bought, would not have financially aided the artists anyway. Still theoretical theft, but from who? A vendor, a label?
I WISH piracy would ruin the career of a lot of horrible artists. I'd happily download Nickelback's discography a million times over if it would end them. Unfortunately, it would do nothing. It might, however, make the label claim they've lost a few billion "potential" dollars.
I don't think this is the time to make a stand or put any resources into the piracy war.
To pretend you can prove artists' livelihoods have been destroyed by piracy is silly. It's all theory. They took a risk and it didn't work. Maybe that would've happened with ZERO piracy just because of the economy or most people think their music sucks. Being "award-winning" doesn't necessarily mean entitlement to profits.
The issue is more complex than "just plain theft." In a lot of countries, pirated copies are the only copies available of many things. If we're talking just United States... then it still isn't necessarily theft. Again, lots of theory. I know that people try out the full product in this way before deciding if it's worth their money. How many people? You can theorize. You could argue that piracy has actually stimulated the music industry. You could argue it's bringing it to ruin.
You can argue, but you can't prove a thing, because it's not actual physical theft. There's no way to get anything near an accurate estimate of how much of what has been pirated and then not purchased, or what would've otherwise been legally purchased.
Then there's the issue of pirating things that, if they had been bought, would not have financially aided the artists anyway. Still theoretical theft, but from who? A vendor, a label?
I WISH piracy would ruin the career of a lot of horrible artists. I'd happily download Nickelback's discography a million times over if it would end them. Unfortunately, it would do nothing. It might, however, make the label claim they've lost a few billion "potential" dollars.
I don't think this is the time to make a stand or put any resources into the piracy war.
