Nah, not really. The pirated stuff would be from a worse stylish resturant (but with better reputation), but with better prices, better food (no DRM) and within a 10 min walk. And it was also established earlier. The downside is that it has employed some illegal immigrants.
Had it only been about prices, then the development would've been quite different.
A law that incriminates about the entire population is usually a stupid law, so in a way, it's better as it draws more attention. It's called civil dissent.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Because it's by far the strongest means to do it. It is also depending on how you view it. This is more a consequence of a flawed market that gained some means to correct itself. Can you give a legal mean to keep the artists funded, while breaking the way the record companies keeps the market?
If the world starves out therecord companiesdruglords that controls the market to bring them down, how would the poorartistscocaine growers fare?
There's a point where adapting to the law is worse for society than breaking it.
And how is this point easily made legally, without hurting the artists?
Sure, todays market is unstable and not yet adapted to this new digital world, but what the record companies tries to do is to put the genie back into the bottle, so they can return to thier golden age, instead of adapting. And the effect becomes that it will prolong the time the buissness will stabilise and the costumer, artist (and distributor) will find a level that's acceptable.
Bookmarks