You're saying that for a statement to be falsifiable, a logically invalid falsification needs to be accepted. How can you argue that a counterfactual can be proven without actually setting up the counterfactual scenario? Or doing something else that makes logical sense?

[edit]

Also, to be clear, I think that if a study is being used to justify a counterfactual, a long-form argument needs to be made about why it does that. You can't just give the study results (which don't actually test the counterfactual scenario). The relevant counterfactual here is "If copyright law were to be abolished then it would not hurt producers of media like film".

This whole discussion reminds me of the 2000-2010 internet. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-o...

Finally, I've edited out some insults and comments which didn't make sense.