I agree, actually. Piracy represents the voice of the consumer in the market right now. But it's a voice that cries, "I will cut off my nose to spite my face."
Here's why: most of us like the product Hollywood puts out. But we hate the way it's distributed to us. (For instance, this article's rant about loving "Gladiator" but hating the way it was exhibited in one case). By pirating the material, we end up hurting the creators just as much as we hurt the distributors. So everyone loses.
Piracy will always be around, because it's really easy, and the genie is out of the bottle. At the same time, I believe that people will gladly pay for better distribution strategies. Witness the rise of Netflix and iTunes.
> Piracy represents the voice of the consumer in the market right now.
That is a good simple way to put it.
> But it's a voice that cries, "I will cut off my nose to spite my face." ... By pirating the material, we end up hurting the creators
But hold on. Hurt? There is a hidden assumption here: that current 'protections' of copyright stuff are at the right level. But what sets that level? (It could be made law that everyone must pay not just for a copy, but for every use: would you then say creators are hurt by someone who did not pay that?) The level is set according to an overall aim: whether sufficient new stuff is created -- it is not about whether creators are 'hurt', it is about whether consumers are satisfied.
Is there any evidence that creative product is diminishing? (doubtful) Just casually, anyone can look around and see plenty of new books, music, film, TV is being made. That means producers are getting enough, and it is the consumers being 'hurt' (more like ripped-off and annoyed).
Lol - a market where people don't pay. Sounds like a great business to be in. It also doesn't sound like the people who are looking for someone to 'take advantage' of the good thing they've got.
The simple creation of a thing doesn't entitle the creator to payment. The music/movie/IP industry has an opportunity/problem. While they could limit supply, they could sustain a monopoly business model with high prices.
Now that there's a new, unlimited supply, the business model has to change. It's not that people won't pay for good content, it's that they won't pay for the same product anymore.
A quick thought experiment: People paid for CDs because they wanted access to music in their own homes. They paid for _access_. A new business model could continue to charge for the same product.
Access could include live streamed concerts, studio recordings, first-access downloads of new tracks, notifications of new bands similar to what you like, small, local, live performances, etc…
