If you never intend to buy said item in the first place because you can't afford it or whatever, how are you hurting the business in question? As long as you are not sharing the product and consuming it solely for yourself, then nothing in the world is changing, you are just using a product.
Hang on, this is not an interesting issue, is the core point of the whole debate. Have people missed it?
Its been the same since all the bleating went on about fake designer labels in the 80's. You are not likely to buy a fake Le Whatever t-shirt if you can afford the real thing. Who buys fake Rolexes? Its not the millionaires who buy the originals is it? If you are a rich person with fake designer labels, you look like a prat. There for, mostly, no loss. The whole thing is basically a lie. There is very little actual loss due to piracy.
Look, most people spend all their money each month. If not spend, then allocate. Which means they have a finite amount to spend. So, if they have to buy that which they down load for free, that means they don't buy something else. Maybe the would just do with out. Often with music it ends up not mattering. I mean, out of 100 CD's how many would you listen to regularly? How many never? What about those who have "illegal" downloads? Most of it you never listen too, right? I could go on.
So, the assumption that these industry Muppets make that all the recordings they see downloaded represents lost money is utterly ridiculous. And they must know that.
And here is why: Music faces massive competition for our finite funds. We spend less in percentage terms because now there is so much more to spend our money on than there was back in the 90's, 80', 70's, and so on. As the decades went by, the competition increased and the music industry got squeezed out, and that is a huge problem. They see there isn't really much they can really do about it, so what we have now is the final desperate tactic of blaming their former customers who chose to spend more of their money else where.
Ooooo, bit of a rant? Sorry... I think I stand by all that. Makes sense to me any way.
I guess part of the problem with fake rolexes is they affect the real brand. Much of the appeal of luxury items comes from their uniqueness & rarity.
The music industry's problem with itunes etc is that they're giving up a lot of control (pricing, customer info, etc) & aren't getting much money out of digital downloads. And Amazon could start signing artists tomorrow.
If anything you are only helping them with this action (despite what they think of it). You might listen to more libre music if commercial music wasn't available for free. You pay them with your attention. You will still be recommending commercial music to friends, boosting thier youtube/lastfm playcount, etc.
Exactly, which is why I'm so passionate about this. I live on a meager $200 a month ($CAD) for food and cigarettes (I smoke unfortunately, but it's hard to quit...), and the rest goes to rent, bills, and my student loan debt.
If someone attempts to tell me to buy media, the last thing I would prioritize, I'd tell them I couldn't, which I believe as the truth. Now you could say I'm harming the industry, but like I said, I don't have a budget for this stuff ATM.
When I manage to pay my debt off, I should be able to afford certain things, like Netflix, which in my opinion, is what a 20 something like me can justify. So in conclusion, I would if I could but I can't so I won't. But when I can, I will.
If you never intend to buy said item in the first place because you can't afford it or whatever, how are you hurting the business in question? As long as you are not sharing the product and consuming it solely for yourself, then nothing in the world is changing, you are just using a product.