Firstly, you seem a little offended. Sorry if I said anything to upset you. Everything I said was merely a suggestion, and you are free do whatever you like with them.
You're suggesting I talk about experiences that aren't my own?
No, not really. I'm just saying, if you consider talking about one of two facets to do with your relationship to copyright and media, I suggest you talk more about your thoughts on less poor people infringing copyright, and less about how you infringe copyright. By talking about one, you're hiding the other anyway. Like I said, it doesn't have to be a secret, just don't over-represent, or unduly glamorise the... err... "perks" of poverty. Temper it with a little of your mediating opinions, that's all.
Perhaps if people stopped thinking that people needed protecting from fact and responsibility, people would be a lot better at handling fact and responsibility.
Perhaps, but perhaps if people stopped providing so much evidence that they can abuse facts and ignore responsibility, less people would think that way. In fact, I believe it wasn't too long ago I was lamenting on the hollow comfort that people take from a copyright infringement being non-commercial. If people were more responsible, and dealt with facts rationally, we wouldn't have these errors in judgement.
I think you're making too much of a big deal out of this "assisted ignorance" business. I think you should be allowed, as private citizens, to push the information you want out onto the world, and do whatever you can, to the extent your legal rights grant you, to withhold the information you don't want out in the world. It probably won't do much good, but I can hardly see it as immoral.
For example, you were trying to convince me that withholding information is wrong. Most people are aware of counter-arguments to that viewpoint (even if they don't find them persuasive), but I wouldn't expect them to disclose them to me. By your logic, only arguing against withholding information is wrong, since you (presumably) have information that would better allow me to make up my mind on the subject, but you chose to hide it passively by arguing exclusively against withholding information.
Of course, I wouldn't expect anything different. In fact, you arguing exclusively, and more passionately, gives me better information (even if its slightly less), because it allows me to experience the viewpoint of someone who is passionately against the proposition. I can find much better counter-arguments from someone who passionately disagrees with you anyway, so your added contribution would make little impact.
Well, I wasn't suggesting you keep it a secret, I'm just saying you don't need to advertise it. For example, instead of talking about how you can download all this stuff and not feel guilty, you could talk about how people who can afford to pay for their stuff, and don't, should feel guilty.
Besides you are allowed to keep secrets from the public. You are allowed to have certain aspects of your life you'd rather not share. You have no obligation to the public. Their information on the subject is not significantly stunted without your contribution.
But that makes no sense because the GGP claimed it was all crap. Why would he even bother with such a low success rate? Surely he would, being the sensible person he evidently is, he would cut down on the number of things he downloaded, and check reviews more often. It would save him a lot of time and bandwidth, that's for sure.
And if he wanted to test things before he bought them, why not go through legitimate sources instead? Or, like I said, reviews? There are plenty of other ways to test a product without obtaining a free version that you can have to keep.
I can certainly say, based on your own evaluation, your situation is better than most. In order to minimise the negative consequences your copyright infringement has on the world (to just about nothing), I suggest:
1) Buy a movie or CD whenever you can, within reason (even if that's literally never). Don't spend it all on other luxury item. 2) Turn off seeding on bittorrent, or whatever P2P application you use. If you go to a torrent site, block their ads with Adblock. 3) Don't advertise publicly that you are doing this.
The reason for 1) is obvious. The reason for 2) is that if you help the system, you'll be helping, 95% of the time, people who are considerably wealthier than you be, as you called it, just slack. Also, these torrent sites are in the business of copyright infringement, and should not be encouraged. The reason for 3) is that people will always think, often mistakenly, that the same concession applies to them. Your position will also seem enviable to people who can afford a little music and movies, but still won't get the amount that you can get from not paying for them, which may drive them to download as well.
Only if they're downloading stuff they would otherwise be buying. If they're spending the same amount on music (even if that's nothing) and downloading is supplimenting that, then their bottom line remains unaffected (unless your definition of "bottom line" includes the richness of a persons music collection, in which case, yep of course that's affected).
Your argument makes sense to a point, but it isn't so simple to say, "well, he wouldn't have bought this, so it's OK". The question is, if you had downloaded nothing how much would you have spent, and what on? I doubt that anyone who downloads a significant amount of copyrighted material could survive on as much as they buy. Their behaviour shows that they like their entertainment in large volumes (even if some claim loudly that it's all crap), and that they're predisposed to buying large volumes of entertainment. The downloaded stuff will lessen the need to buy, because their entertainment stream is big enough, but if the downloads had never been there, well, they might find that the amount they buy doesn't satisfy them, and that they'll have to pay for the rest out of pocket. Basically, I think it affects most regular copyright infringer's bottom lines.
yeah but... isn't selfishness sometimes alright?
Sure, but we're talking about commercial vs non-commercial copyright infringement. Surely the majority of copyright infringers out there aren't sharing exclusively for the poor and down-trodden...
I'm also not defending people who don't contribute to a works that they can afford, that's just slack.
Like, people with fast internet connections?;)
I guess people, depending on their walks thru life etc, will feel different things over the issue, and as with most instances of 'feeling' things, it's based on perception rather than fact, so things that sway perception (such as doing it purely for money, not for sharing or passion for the arts) get pulled into the debate.
I know, I know. *sigh*. That answer is pretty much all I've ever managed to get in terms of sensible answers as to why people keep promoting non-commercial infringement over commercial infringement. I wish that someone, who actually does think that, would just once explain to me why he believes that, in rational terms, or admit he is wrong.
That leaves one important question: why do you download it if it's crappy, and it isn't in your personal interest? Seriously, because I truly cannot think of a single reason why someone would do something illegal if they got no rewards/pleasure/personal gain from it. Your behaviour completely baffles me.
Yeah, I guess so. It just seems like such a hollow gesture.
I mean, non-commercial infringers are still largely sharing for their own gain, and even, I suppose, their own monetary gain, since their sharing directly and positively affects their own personal bottom lines. The fact that the sharer is not getting money from other people seems, IMHO, to be immaterial. It's still a selfish action at its core.
...especially when Joel was (allegedly) a noncommercial P2P user back in 2003...
(Emphasis mine)
I don't get why we put so much emphasis on whether a person is a non-commercial infringer or a commercial infringer. Surely, from the perspective of the copyright holder, a lost sale is a lost sale, no matter whether it was lost to a sharer, or lost to a business. In fact, I would even think the non-commercial infringer would be the more damaging, because he provides his service for free, which undercuts the copyright holder more seriously than a commercial infringer.
Sorry, I know it's only tangentially on topic, but this question continues to bug me.
Whenever a person (and I use the term broadly) calls CP something which isn't, he or she must be painted a paedophile. Use the broadest brush possible, I don't care whether it's moral or not anymore: whoever screams "paedophiles!" is projecting and must be a closet one himself.
- You consider that picture I took of my 3yo in a bath sexual? What kind of a sick paedophile are you??? - No, I just want to protect the children from the predators... - Yes, dirty predators like yourself! You should be locked up! I'm calling the paper.
Your logic is as impregnable as a 12-year-old boy.
There is a common stereotype that wherever there is an observation of a trend correlating with a specific group, there is also a stereotype, but that isn't always true (although, it commonly is - I've noticed that trend myself). I made an observation, but I never generalised it, neither explicitly nor in implication (accept it, or prove me wrong). Thus it's not a stereotype. The whole thing just doesn't fit, despite your attempts to shoehorn me into the stereotype mould.
If I might borrow your own logic momentarily, I must say I've seen a pattern in the behavior of Slashdot 'intellectuals' to knee jerk about the first assigned negative and assign it back to the accuser whether it's the least bit rational or not.
Yeah, but there isn't logic in there, only observation. If you said that Slashdot 'intellectuals' knee jerk... (etc, the rest of your observation), there would be the implied logic that because you made the original observation, it applies to generally to all Slashdot 'intellectuals'. Therein lies the stereotype.
Or if you made that observation, and then concluded that my argument was without merit from that observation alone, then you would be stereotyping me. Always, always, there must be something more than a simple observation in order for there to be a stereotype.
Just as a side note, I have argued with a lot of Slashdotters over the years over a variety of issues, and I have accused people (and been accused myself) of hypocrisy in much the same fashion as you have observed. It's a rhetorical technique that actually fits a surprising number of situations. Which is why, I take the effort to be careful with my words. As I said, I have been accused many times of hypocrisy, but I cannot think of a single time that someone has accused me of hypocrisy, and not have their claims subsequently, and conclusively disproved. Just a warning, in case you wished to try it on me.
Re:Can we please just get the US out of the UN?
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The UN isn't so great for countries with a lot of power, because many of their functions are about limiting and sharing power. On the other hand, there is something to be said, even if you are a superpower, for keeping communications open between countries. The alternative ends up with a lot of dangerous pent up resentment between countries.
Seriously, this isn't a troll, even if you disagree with me.
(Forgive me in advance, I wasn't planning to be anywhere this mean.)
You should probably worry more about whether a concept is right or wrong than trying to stereotype the style in which it is presented like that's some kind of insight.
Wrong. I'm not trying to stereotype (unlike yourself right now).
In fact, I would go further to say that the reasoning of 'you're wrong because the pithy phrase said so' is actually more sound than 'you're wrong because you quoted somebody'.
Wrong. That is not my reasoning. In fact, there's very little reasoning needed to observe a trend. Also, I don't equate that with being wrong, but they're at a rhetorical disadvantage for ignoring the other guy's arguments, and quoting the one-size-fits-all phrase instead.
A phrase can itself be right or wrong, sound or unsound, relevant or irrelevant, but categorically dismissing arguments because they center on one is irrational.
Wrong. I may dismiss, very rationally, arguments centring on a fallacy, but that has nothing much to do with my previous statements. You are also wrong in the implication that I was dismissing the argument.
I will grant you didn't explicitly say that this is how such arguments should be handled, but at the very least you imply that they are somehow intrinsically inferior, regardless of how sound, relevant or even correct the reference made might be.
Wrong... er... right! Yes, that is true. Cookie-cutter arguments work with a specific set of circumstances (if they work at all). In order to use them, you may have to explain why the cookie cutter argument is a better fit for the situation than home-baked argument that is built for the situation.
Another example: it's a fairly common argument to say "Stereotyping is wrong". This too has conditions attached to it. It's great (mostly) if someone is stereotyping a group. It's not so great if someone is passively observing a trend. See how it works?
I, quite literally, agreed with everything you said, except one sentence, which shall go unnamed, because it's only a slight disagreement, and is pretty inconsequential. I agree that both sides are wrong in the copyright debate, but pro-pirates on slashdot seem already to be oh so aware already that the other side is wrong, so I like to remind them that they're wrong too.;)
Is it so unthinkable that people simply don't accept your terms and walk away?
Absolutely not! I consider that the best, most ethical, and most effective way of showing the RIAA (or MPAA, or whoever else) your displeasure with their treatment of their copyrights.
One guy makes a reasoned argument, and the next guy quotes a catchphrase.
OK, this one wasn't so bad, because he simply pointed out that it was a dangerous path to travel down, rather than saying "you're wrong, because the catch phrase said so".
Its a dirty fight, the other side isnt interested in honesty or fairness, i say we fight them any way we can.
And I say that stooping to their level is a great way to alienate supporters, especially those who enjoy the moral high ground.
There are also some prejudices associated with piracy (most of which I personally hold). For example, that pirates are selfish people, who are willing to screw artists to have extra entertainment. Another example: pirates are addicted to their free entertainment stream.*
What do you think that arguing petty loopholes would do to the already tarnished image of the average pirate? It makes you look desperate, which makes you look addicted and selfish. You'd best keep the moral high ground.
*Ever noticed how many "well why don't you just stop?" posts there are out there in piracy discussions?
YouTube would be the last place where someone is looking to "pirate" songs.
But it certainly isn't the last place someone looks in order to listen to songs without paying for them. It's still piracy, although it's probably not as damaging as distributing over P2P networks.
Allow me to tell you why exposure on YouTube may be a good thing.
Don't bother. Explain, instead, why exposure on YouTube is always a good thing, so much so that any commercial performing artist should be forced to advertise there against their will. As it stands, being the copyright holder, they have a right to decide that giving away unlimited free once-off uses of their product (delivered to the consumer's home, no less) may not be as commercially sound as the people on the interwebs would have them believe.
Dunno how many others will wait to buy the original when it FINALLY comes out here, because you can certainly get bootlegs by now through torrents and such, but why studios can't release their discs at the same time globally is a completely different problem.
Not my problem.
No it isn't, but people still manage to act as though it is their problem that, somewhere in the world, someone else is getting their copy before them. Piracy follows easily from that sense of entitlement.
Instead of suing everyone, maybe fix the problems you can fix. Like, say, giving the people what they want to buy.
Well, some people would rather buy nothing and pirate everything (hey, who wouldn't want the extra change in the pocket?), so why not start by giving them what they want to buy!
Seriously though, piracy gives consumers an unprecedented amount of power in the trade relationship. Previously, product makers could rest on the quality of their product in order to set their prices. People who wanted to pay less (i.e. everyone - they all want to pay as little as possible) would have to choose between not having the product and having their money, or having the product and putting up with whatever conditions of sale were imposed. The trick is to make the product so desirable, that the choice of not having it seems unthinkable, which allows the manufacturer to adjust the sale price up until they find a sweet spot that makes them the most profit.
Piracy creates a third option, which is superior to the other options, to the savvy consumer, in every way. You get the product and you don't have to pay the money. Nothing that a copyright holder can do will make their product more desirable than their free competitors. So, sure copyright holders could resolve to give pirates what they want (short of making their entire catalogue free), and sure, by doing so they might scrounge back a few sales that they might have lost to piracy, but this all sets a terrible precedent. Just because people are more than happy to break the law, they can now bully copyright holders into paying unfairly low prices.
SO be it. Give them what they want. Take down all music related content everywhere that isn't on their own sites. That means: Discussion boards about their music, Fan sites about their music, album reviews, links to amazon, etc. All of it.
I don't think they want to get rid of all of their fan base, I think they just want a fanbase without piracy. They already have a fanbase, they just want a piracy-free one like copyright law promises.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, you seem a little offended. Sorry if I said anything to upset you. Everything I said was merely a suggestion, and you are free do whatever you like with them.
No, not really. I'm just saying, if you consider talking about one of two facets to do with your relationship to copyright and media, I suggest you talk more about your thoughts on less poor people infringing copyright, and less about how you infringe copyright. By talking about one, you're hiding the other anyway. Like I said, it doesn't have to be a secret, just don't over-represent, or unduly glamorise the... err... "perks" of poverty. Temper it with a little of your mediating opinions, that's all.
Perhaps, but perhaps if people stopped providing so much evidence that they can abuse facts and ignore responsibility, less people would think that way. In fact, I believe it wasn't too long ago I was lamenting on the hollow comfort that people take from a copyright infringement being non-commercial. If people were more responsible, and dealt with facts rationally, we wouldn't have these errors in judgement.
I think you're making too much of a big deal out of this "assisted ignorance" business. I think you should be allowed, as private citizens, to push the information you want out onto the world, and do whatever you can, to the extent your legal rights grant you, to withhold the information you don't want out in the world. It probably won't do much good, but I can hardly see it as immoral.
For example, you were trying to convince me that withholding information is wrong. Most people are aware of counter-arguments to that viewpoint (even if they don't find them persuasive), but I wouldn't expect them to disclose them to me. By your logic, only arguing against withholding information is wrong, since you (presumably) have information that would better allow me to make up my mind on the subject, but you chose to hide it passively by arguing exclusively against withholding information.
Of course, I wouldn't expect anything different. In fact, you arguing exclusively, and more passionately, gives me better information (even if its slightly less), because it allows me to experience the viewpoint of someone who is passionately against the proposition. I can find much better counter-arguments from someone who passionately disagrees with you anyway, so your added contribution would make little impact.
Anyway, that's my little bit of philosophising. :)
So that's why some people want companies to open up DRM! It's because they do a clearly superior job compared with open source equivalents!
Well, I wasn't suggesting you keep it a secret, I'm just saying you don't need to advertise it. For example, instead of talking about how you can download all this stuff and not feel guilty, you could talk about how people who can afford to pay for their stuff, and don't, should feel guilty.
Besides you are allowed to keep secrets from the public. You are allowed to have certain aspects of your life you'd rather not share. You have no obligation to the public. Their information on the subject is not significantly stunted without your contribution.
But that makes no sense because the GGP claimed it was all crap. Why would he even bother with such a low success rate? Surely he would, being the sensible person he evidently is, he would cut down on the number of things he downloaded, and check reviews more often. It would save him a lot of time and bandwidth, that's for sure.
And if he wanted to test things before he bought them, why not go through legitimate sources instead? Or, like I said, reviews? There are plenty of other ways to test a product without obtaining a free version that you can have to keep.
I can certainly say, based on your own evaluation, your situation is better than most. In order to minimise the negative consequences your copyright infringement has on the world (to just about nothing), I suggest:
1) Buy a movie or CD whenever you can, within reason (even if that's literally never). Don't spend it all on other luxury item.
2) Turn off seeding on bittorrent, or whatever P2P application you use. If you go to a torrent site, block their ads with Adblock.
3) Don't advertise publicly that you are doing this.
The reason for 1) is obvious. The reason for 2) is that if you help the system, you'll be helping, 95% of the time, people who are considerably wealthier than you be, as you called it, just slack. Also, these torrent sites are in the business of copyright infringement, and should not be encouraged. The reason for 3) is that people will always think, often mistakenly, that the same concession applies to them. Your position will also seem enviable to people who can afford a little music and movies, but still won't get the amount that you can get from not paying for them, which may drive them to download as well.
Your argument makes sense to a point, but it isn't so simple to say, "well, he wouldn't have bought this, so it's OK". The question is, if you had downloaded nothing how much would you have spent, and what on? I doubt that anyone who downloads a significant amount of copyrighted material could survive on as much as they buy. Their behaviour shows that they like their entertainment in large volumes (even if some claim loudly that it's all crap), and that they're predisposed to buying large volumes of entertainment. The downloaded stuff will lessen the need to buy, because their entertainment stream is big enough, but if the downloads had never been there, well, they might find that the amount they buy doesn't satisfy them, and that they'll have to pay for the rest out of pocket. Basically, I think it affects most regular copyright infringer's bottom lines.
Sure, but we're talking about commercial vs non-commercial copyright infringement. Surely the majority of copyright infringers out there aren't sharing exclusively for the poor and down-trodden...
Like, people with fast internet connections? ;)
I know, I know. *sigh*. That answer is pretty much all I've ever managed to get in terms of sensible answers as to why people keep promoting non-commercial infringement over commercial infringement. I wish that someone, who actually does think that, would just once explain to me why he believes that, in rational terms, or admit he is wrong.
That leaves one important question: why do you download it if it's crappy, and it isn't in your personal interest? Seriously, because I truly cannot think of a single reason why someone would do something illegal if they got no rewards/pleasure/personal gain from it. Your behaviour completely baffles me.
Yeah, I guess so. It just seems like such a hollow gesture.
I mean, non-commercial infringers are still largely sharing for their own gain, and even, I suppose, their own monetary gain, since their sharing directly and positively affects their own personal bottom lines. The fact that the sharer is not getting money from other people seems, IMHO, to be immaterial. It's still a selfish action at its core.
Quit it! My faith in humanity is shaky enough as it is!
(Emphasis mine)
I don't get why we put so much emphasis on whether a person is a non-commercial infringer or a commercial infringer. Surely, from the perspective of the copyright holder, a lost sale is a lost sale, no matter whether it was lost to a sharer, or lost to a business. In fact, I would even think the non-commercial infringer would be the more damaging, because he provides his service for free, which undercuts the copyright holder more seriously than a commercial infringer.
Sorry, I know it's only tangentially on topic, but this question continues to bug me.
Whenever a person (and I use the term broadly) calls CP something which isn't, he or she must be painted a paedophile.
Use the broadest brush possible, I don't care whether it's moral or not anymore: whoever screams "paedophiles!" is projecting and must be a closet one himself.
- You consider that picture I took of my 3yo in a bath sexual? What kind of a sick paedophile are you???
- No, I just want to protect the children from the predators...
- Yes, dirty predators like yourself! You should be locked up! I'm calling the paper.
Your logic is as impregnable as a 12-year-old boy.
I'm now an april fool!
WTF?
There is a common stereotype that wherever there is an observation of a trend correlating with a specific group, there is also a stereotype, but that isn't always true (although, it commonly is - I've noticed that trend myself). I made an observation, but I never generalised it, neither explicitly nor in implication (accept it, or prove me wrong). Thus it's not a stereotype. The whole thing just doesn't fit, despite your attempts to shoehorn me into the stereotype mould.
Yeah, but there isn't logic in there, only observation. If you said that Slashdot 'intellectuals' knee jerk ... (etc, the rest of your observation), there would be the implied logic that because you made the original observation, it applies to generally to all Slashdot 'intellectuals'. Therein lies the stereotype.
Or if you made that observation, and then concluded that my argument was without merit from that observation alone, then you would be stereotyping me. Always, always, there must be something more than a simple observation in order for there to be a stereotype.
Just as a side note, I have argued with a lot of Slashdotters over the years over a variety of issues, and I have accused people (and been accused myself) of hypocrisy in much the same fashion as you have observed. It's a rhetorical technique that actually fits a surprising number of situations. Which is why, I take the effort to be careful with my words. As I said, I have been accused many times of hypocrisy, but I cannot think of a single time that someone has accused me of hypocrisy, and not have their claims subsequently, and conclusively disproved. Just a warning, in case you wished to try it on me.
The UN isn't so great for countries with a lot of power, because many of their functions are about limiting and sharing power. On the other hand, there is something to be said, even if you are a superpower, for keeping communications open between countries. The alternative ends up with a lot of dangerous pent up resentment between countries.
Wait, isn't that the definition? ;)
... immediately and retroactively.
Yeah, but if they don't want it, or they can't afford it, what makes you think they deserve it?
For the same reason I use any word. Because it conveys the meaning I want.
Except, of course, to idiots, but who can help them, eh?
(Forgive me in advance, I wasn't planning to be anywhere this mean.)
Wrong. I'm not trying to stereotype (unlike yourself right now).
Wrong. That is not my reasoning. In fact, there's very little reasoning needed to observe a trend. Also, I don't equate that with being wrong, but they're at a rhetorical disadvantage for ignoring the other guy's arguments, and quoting the one-size-fits-all phrase instead.
Wrong. I may dismiss, very rationally, arguments centring on a fallacy, but that has nothing much to do with my previous statements. You are also wrong in the implication that I was dismissing the argument.
Wrong... er... right! Yes, that is true. Cookie-cutter arguments work with a specific set of circumstances (if they work at all). In order to use them, you may have to explain why the cookie cutter argument is a better fit for the situation than home-baked argument that is built for the situation.
You probably want an example, right? All mothers say, "Wear a jumper, or you'll catch a cold", or something along those lines. However, if you say that to someone, and someone else says back "It's 40 degrees out here, and there's no-one in sight. The influenza virus could not possibly survive out here", you'll be (rightfully) laughed at. The "wear a jumper" argument is attached to certain conditions that make the argument valid. However, in other situations, there are counter-arguments that fit better than the cliché.
Another example: it's a fairly common argument to say "Stereotyping is wrong". This too has conditions attached to it. It's great (mostly) if someone is stereotyping a group. It's not so great if someone is passively observing a trend. See how it works?
I, quite literally, agreed with everything you said, except one sentence, which shall go unnamed, because it's only a slight disagreement, and is pretty inconsequential. I agree that both sides are wrong in the copyright debate, but pro-pirates on slashdot seem already to be oh so aware already that the other side is wrong, so I like to remind them that they're wrong too. ;)
Absolutely not! I consider that the best, most ethical, and most effective way of showing the RIAA (or MPAA, or whoever else) your displeasure with their treatment of their copyrights.
One guy makes a reasoned argument, and the next guy quotes a catchphrase.
OK, this one wasn't so bad, because he simply pointed out that it was a dangerous path to travel down, rather than saying "you're wrong, because the catch phrase said so".
And I say that stooping to their level is a great way to alienate supporters, especially those who enjoy the moral high ground.
There are also some prejudices associated with piracy (most of which I personally hold). For example, that pirates are selfish people, who are willing to screw artists to have extra entertainment. Another example: pirates are addicted to their free entertainment stream.*
What do you think that arguing petty loopholes would do to the already tarnished image of the average pirate? It makes you look desperate, which makes you look addicted and selfish. You'd best keep the moral high ground.
*Ever noticed how many "well why don't you just stop?" posts there are out there in piracy discussions?
Hey, and while we're at it, why don't we blame open sexuality for wiping out the dinosaurs?
But it certainly isn't the last place someone looks in order to listen to songs without paying for them. It's still piracy, although it's probably not as damaging as distributing over P2P networks.
Don't bother. Explain, instead, why exposure on YouTube is always a good thing, so much so that any commercial performing artist should be forced to advertise there against their will. As it stands, being the copyright holder, they have a right to decide that giving away unlimited free once-off uses of their product (delivered to the consumer's home, no less) may not be as commercially sound as the people on the interwebs would have them believe.
No it isn't, but people still manage to act as though it is their problem that, somewhere in the world, someone else is getting their copy before them. Piracy follows easily from that sense of entitlement.
Well, some people would rather buy nothing and pirate everything (hey, who wouldn't want the extra change in the pocket?), so why not start by giving them what they want to buy!
Seriously though, piracy gives consumers an unprecedented amount of power in the trade relationship. Previously, product makers could rest on the quality of their product in order to set their prices. People who wanted to pay less (i.e. everyone - they all want to pay as little as possible) would have to choose between not having the product and having their money, or having the product and putting up with whatever conditions of sale were imposed. The trick is to make the product so desirable, that the choice of not having it seems unthinkable, which allows the manufacturer to adjust the sale price up until they find a sweet spot that makes them the most profit.
Piracy creates a third option, which is superior to the other options, to the savvy consumer, in every way. You get the product and you don't have to pay the money. Nothing that a copyright holder can do will make their product more desirable than their free competitors. So, sure copyright holders could resolve to give pirates what they want (short of making their entire catalogue free), and sure, by doing so they might scrounge back a few sales that they might have lost to piracy, but this all sets a terrible precedent. Just because people are more than happy to break the law, they can now bully copyright holders into paying unfairly low prices.
I don't think they want to get rid of all of their fan base, I think they just want a fanbase without piracy. They already have a fanbase, they just want a piracy-free one like copyright law promises.