| The problem is the greed and narcissism on both sides. The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. They used to be able to justify this by claiming that they sponsored and nurtured talent. That was always a stretch, even when 15% of a CD sale - maximum - went to the original creator, and the rest to the rest of the industry. But advances did happen, and they were the only way creatives could afford to get on the first step of the professional ladder. Now we have shitty YouTube and Spotify streaming deals where advances don't happen, and the industry - all of it - keeps way more than the 85% of nominal value it used to. But the "I want it, so you should give it to me for nothing because it costs nothing to copy" pirates aren't any better. How many pirates have made any effort to sponsor creators, or pay creators directly for original content? So what we actually have isn't a moral battle between good guys and bad guys. It's a battle between two distribution cartels - one legally sanctioned, the other not yet sanctioned but hoping to be. And both are increasingly indistinguishable in their lack of interest in sponsoring and promoting original creative work. |
Studies in Norway, the UK, Australia and the US have shown that pirates actually spend more than the general population on digital products like music and films. The idea that you're either a Buyer or a Pirate is not, and has never been true.
The fact is that a lot of people simply can't afford to buy all the content they enjoy, and while some may find that morally repugnant, cracking down on that piracy won't bring a cent more to authors.