Originally Posted by JoeD
The crux imo is that if those people are not and will never be a source of income, logic would say forget about them. Don't waste money pursuing them. Look after your real customers.
Which does make a degree of sense. However, if nobody anywhere pursued any copyright infringer because they're never going to be a customer anyway. It sends the message to everyone who was borderline that it's ok to pirate, you'll never be caught, you'll never be fined etc Over time I believe (I could be wrong) more and more people would start to pirate because on the face of it, it's a victimless crime. Which I think is true, up until you hit a tipping point where there's insufficient people still buying and at that point, companies close/change their line of business and we end up with fewer and fewer choices of entertainment.
If there was a tipping point to be reached, it would have been reached already. It is trivially easy for people to get most media freely if they want to, and has been for quite awhile. However, people keep spending money on stores like Steam, iTunes, PSN, Amazon, etc. Meanwhile, those sites are doing increasingly big business; if a culture of sharing were really killing them it seems like profits should be dwindling rather than increasing.
The tipping point argument is the Slippery Slope Fallacy in a Sunday dress.
Originally Posted by HarryT
I don't want more restrictive copyright laws; I want to see better methods of allowing people to actually receive the protection that the existing law is supposed to grant them. I trust that clarifies it.
Perfectly clear. You're not satisfied with existing copyright enforcement methods but don't want new laws, i.e. you want to both have and eat your cake.