Exactly, the assumption that illegal downloading causes people to lose money is based on the premise that those who downloaded illegally would have bought the music/movies/etc. had they not been available for free. That's a difficult premise to prove and unlikely.
How does it hurt the company?
No, it doesn't. Why would it? They aren't losing a dime.
Shoplifting and downloading copies of music are two completely different beasts. A proper comparison would be if someone could copy a handbag in a store infinitely and then share those copies for free. It seems like you don't really understand what illegal downloading is if you think it's comparable to shoplifting.
Yeah, I agree. Moreover, what these latest treaties and bills are doing is harming other relatively innocent aspects of the internet (like Wikipedia and YouTube) in order to stop a problem that is not going to be stopped.
I don't care enough to show it, but the fact that you think making illegal downloaders mad is a good thing is beyond ridiculous. I belong to the generation who does this stuff and pissing people off just makes them beat the system even more out of spite.
LOL, most people who illegally download music, movies, etc. openly admit it. In any case, if you aren't even willing to acknowledge that the main arguments against SOPA, et al. weren't about illegal downloading, then I think it's clear that you probably aren't well read on this subject and don't fully grasp the implications of treaties and bills like this.
This is true too. Oftentimes, not spending money is a matter of not having money so nobody's losing anything anyway. However, when people do get the money, they'll often buy whatever they 'stole' and again, nobody lost anything. Consequently, all of these arguments about how much money companies are losing are pretty unfounded.
No, and you don't have any proof they wouldn't have. In fact, in the case of the people who paid Megaupload for an increase in download speed, they did pay for the files. This is not a victim-less crime.
I think good will and respect are things a lot people take for granted. Earning the respect of the consumer makes people want to spend their money and support your business. When businesses or other institutions piss people off, the goodwill goes out the window and people don't want to help you out anymore. Supporting bills like SOPA and this treaty have that effect. I think a good example of that is GoDaddy. They lost a lot of business after the CEO supported SOPA (he doesn't anymore). That's why I found it funny when 1Perry thought that making people mad was a good thing. It's definitely not.
If by "any of this" you mean the proposed digital IP protection laws you are incorrect. While I admit to piracy on an extremely small scale (long before the Internet) I haven't done it for decades. That doesn't mean I don't have worries and concerns about these proposed laws. What you're saying is the same as saying, "If you never speak out against Uncle Sam then you have no worries about the First Amendment" or a cop saying "If you didn't commit the crime then you have no worries about our taking your fingerprints and DNA". That's rubbish. SOPA, PIPA, and now ACTA (at least what little I've been able to research) all infringe to some extent or other into what Internet users consider their Right to Privacy. (I say it that way because, so far, few laws have been written on the subject in this particular regard.) These Acts also infringe on normal Internet business, even existing laws do this to some extent. Consider all the legitimate users/clients of Magaupload who have (legal) files that are now in Electronic Limbo, unable to access what could easily be their self-created digital intellectual property. Yes, I have plenty of reasons to worry and I'm no pirate!
They won't. They have just as big a stake in it as anybody.
I never said it wasn't victim-less. I'm questioning the claim that it is. You say it is. Where is your proof? Where is your proof that people would have bought it legally had it not been available illegally? At this point, saying "it's not a victim-less crime" is just an empty claim.
Completely agree. I think a big part of the problem is just general ignorance about how the Internet works. Obviously, some people who make these treaties have other (usually money based) interests as well, but there's also an element of them not fully understanding the implications of the agreements that they are sponsoring.