You are ignoring the category of people who will download for free when they can but will pay if they can't. You later backtrack on this false dichotomy using yourself as anecdotal evidence that this omitted category is insignificant, but anecdotal evidence has the reputation it has for a reason. It's a pretty bold claim that nearly everybody who pirates something wouldn't pay for it if it wasn't available for piracy. It's not the type of claim I would make without real evidence.
Not ignoring them, just have never seen a shred of evidence that shows they are a significant group of people.
And I've never seen a shred of evidence that they aren't significant. Granted, I haven't looked for myself, but whenever I ask the "my piracy is actually beneficial for the producers of the work" advocates, they've never given me evidence for their claims. I don't claim to know either way. I would just expect people who do take a stance have something to back it up with.
It's a common belief among self publishers. It didn't come naturally though, it is a consensus derived from many authors spending the time tracking sales and experimenting with different marketing techniques, including making their books available for free. In fact, that kind of marketing is well established and offers a ton of empirical insight into how having your media out there for free affects your ability to make money. There is also a lot of evidence out there that people who get your book for free would never have bought it.
Well, if you say so, sure, I guess. Other than lack of citation, I have no reason to doubt you.
When you track your numbers closely and experiment with different marketing techniques, you are no longer working with "anecdotal evidence", you are working with empirical evidence.
Seriously, I'm not doubting that you're accurately describing your own experience or that your conclusions are valid for your experience, but you're not providing anything concrete to make me consider "my piracy actually helps out the IP owners" claims are anything more than feel-good justifications. You do understand when people claim that their illegal activities actually benefit the folks that would appear to be possibly harmed by said activities, then a degree of skepticism is warranted, yes?
I recall more than once a company "leaking" copies of music or movies to garner exposure.
I have no reason to doubt this. And that was their choice. Others do not choose this. For the ones who decide not to market in such a manner, don't insult my intelligence by telling me that you're doing charity marketing work for them when you pirate their product. Are you also going to volunteer to do HR work for them? Accounting, maybe? If your interest is in marketing and you feel so strongly that their marketing department is dropping the ball and you need to fix it, then apply for a job in their marketing department.
If you believe for a second that half the music that is making money today would have made more than a few pennies if not for rampant piracy (and the exposure that comes with it) then you are delusional.
I have no opinion on the subject at all. But until you deign to link to real research, I'd hold off on calling people delusional.
I am pretty damn sure piracy isn't holding me back from being a best seller either, or even taking food off my table. Can I prove it? No, but common sense
Yeah, common sense. Everyone's a genius marketing expert/professional sports coach/armchair general/political strategist. I'll take empirical evidence over common sense any day.
But none of this matters, if you believe piracy is evil and every download is taking food off some copyright holder's table,
This doesn't describe me at all
then you aren't going to listen to any kind of evidence, empirical or anecdotal.
Don't get so defensive. Pre-emptively accusing me of a closed mind is a low tactic. Here's an idea: provide your empirical evidence, and then when I dismiss it as you predict, you'll have the pleasure of pointing to my closed mind and laughing. When someone throws anecdotal evidence at me and only claims they have empirical evidence, and then gives themselves an excuse for not providing empirical evidence, I have to wonder about the existence of this alleged empirical evidence. Would you not entertain the same skepticism in my position?