Quote - I have a suspicion that "increasinly rampant piracy" doesn't affect merchants as much as everyone thinks, because people who pirate probably never buy things and probably never would. ie if they can't pirate it they would rather do without it.  Also since they couldn't really do any great successful works with it ie if they made a movie or novel cover or something with poser and it did well then they could be sued I really don't think these people would buy stuff anyway.  At least I don't think they would buy much stuff even if there was some magic way we could stop them from pirating anything.

Love esther

"because people who pirate probably never buy things and probably never would. ie if they can't pirate it they would rather do without it."

That is what you are supposed to believe, yet there is evidence strongly refuting this assumption.  Consider a Norwegian study of online music purchasing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

The study found that "compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…

• 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
• 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
• 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
• 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone."

Many people who pirate are simply (obsessive?) collectors, or people who choose carefully where to spend limited resources and therefore see piracy as a way to either have a larger library or to sample something they do not feel comfortable spending money on.  I have seen this with computer games as well, the biggest pirates also always bought more software.  I personally don't think anyone should pirate anything they would otherwise buy.  However I do disagree with the idea that every pirated copy is a lost sale, or that no pirate would ever buy anything.  I'd expect the main difference between a non-pirating person and a casual pirate is that the pirate doesn't let having to engage in piracy prevent them from having/listening to/viewing/playing whatever they choose.  I have suspicions that the industry doesn't see piracy of "product A" as affecting the sales of "product A" so much as it actually affects the sales of "product B".  A pirate may decide a movie simply doesn't look to be worth paying for but would still watch the movie to pass time (given a pirated copy), rather than buying and watching a movie they do deem worth paying for.  I figure this applies to content as well.  Has an artist ever been caught brazenly using "pirated" content by a vendor?