"And everyone else involved in producing that product?"
Yes, do tell. How much do all those grunts get paid? How is it possible film after film makes "losses" in the books (as in, the entity paying the people you're trotting out; they get paid a wage and that's it), while the studios, as in the execs and all the other useless cruft, makes more money than that they're putting effort in?
Go ahead and wilfully put out poster child straw men that still won't be any better off should "piracy" vanish overnight. Go ahead and moan about money not paid that I just pointed out could have been had, had the useless gits up top not chosen to sue the customer and drench their actions in morality sauce and back it up with secret, bought legislation, but instead had they went out and reach out, deliver what the customer wants, for a price the customer wants to pay.
There's no inherent right that if you produce something, say a chair or a table or a car or a load of bread or whatever, a customer pops up and says "alright I'll pay you for that". You also have to go out and sell it. Copyright exists to ensure that something that is easily copied, instead can be sold more or less like it was a chair. For a time. Given customers.
That's how it's supposed to work in an economy. The problem isn't copyright, but it's the abuse (and endlessly stretching) of said assigned rights for controlling the audience instead of for what it was ment to do, ensure artists getting paid.
Like what we see so often: Lots of hyping (hollywood do know how to sell their tired old formulaic crap) and then saying to most of the world "nooo you can't haaave it for another three months, neener neener". And they wonder why people don't bother to go to the store --they know it won't be there-- or to use official channels --that are bound to say "sorry not available in your country"-- but instead fire up the old file sharing thing and get it another way. That's what you get for effectively saying "we don't want your money". Well, says the customer, if you don't want it, I'll keep it. But the customer still wants the product, and will find a way to get it.
Go ahead and defend abuse, accusing everybody else that no, they are the abusers. It's a sure-fire way to entice people who previously would've been happy to pay, to instead say sod that and we'll take our money elsewhere. Go right ahead. Please do.
It just gives more rise to the notion that copyright as it exists today is not fit for purpose and that we need something less prone to executive abuse, something more tailored to making sure the grunts do get paid fair compensation for their efforts, and that customers can buy the results for a fair price without silly, arbitrary restrictions.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
