Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbobaggins  l be a deterrent to the dumbest & in particular the smartest of people. In fact it will probably be the smart ones who realise that 99c is a lot less hassle than getting a $100 fine or having their internet cut off" |
no reason to hope against hope. However, if we agree that piracy is not a crime of economics, then the price of the music nor the price of the fine have any impact on piracy at all.
Thereby the pirates who are smart will not cease making the pirate market more efficient. They are not influenced by price nor economics.
Think about napster: it was by far the easiest mean of pirating. Download an executable, key in a song, download it. It was shut down in 2001 or so. How much better would the industry have been if napster had been allowed to continue?
Would people have been driven to more efficient / massive means of piracy?
Now, instead of a single song, people download entire catalogs / discographies. by your argument, leaving napster alone would be better.
I claim--it just doesn't matter. Piracy might account for 10% drop. Yes, it is uncertainty and unhealthy because of that: is an artist a failure because of piracy or other factors? Might be hard to tell.
But: Consider the beatles boxsets. Why would they sell out, esp when one could assumably download the entire thing? Isn't that competition vs free?