I pay for all the movies I watch via iTunes. I never pirate movies. Most of the music I listen to is internet radio (i.e. it is free but with the artists permission). Some of my friends consider me odd, and watch more movies than I do, but that's OK.
That's not what I said, please read again.
Nobody has a human right to Taylor Swift's music. If you can't buy it then just go listen to the radio, or use Spotify's ad supported service, or do something else.
Sure. That's why I said it might be more just and moral. Please read my post attentively before replying.
But how many artists has your self-sacrifice of not pirating actually helped, compared to someone who spends the same amount but also pirates?
I do believe that in Taylor Swift's case, you can't; at least not all of it. She didn't put her latest album on Spotify either. Honestly, I've got little sympathy for her: she's the most famous and successful singer-songwriter in the last decade by far, and these sorts of stunts don't really endear her in my eyes. But she doesn't care, 'cause haters gonna hate hate hate, right?
To me the end result would be simple: The average user would have to pay more for their content
People aren't exactly burning the money they would have otherwise spend on such content; they aren't going to stop paying their rent because they have less free music. The discretionary income of the median person is simply not that high, and a rich person won't start buying hundreds of albums to make up for the ones the working class can't afford.
And people listening to less music instead of pirating may be more just or moral or whatever, but it doesn't pay the artists' bill anymore than piracy does.
I may be old school - I pay for things, I am happy to pay for things.
I, on the other hand, am new school, part of a generation with 25%+ unemployment and many more in precarious jobs. It's not that we don't like to pay for things - it's that's often simply not an option.
If SOPA had passed, we would've just go back to sneakernet sharing.