> Remind me, how many media companies have gone bust due to so called "piracy"? Sony? Warners? Fox? Any?

Why does that matter?

> Any artists gone bust provably down to "piracy"? In fact many really awful "artists" make millions, seemingly supported by draconian acts of government. I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets.

If Rihanna wanted people to have her music for free why doesn't she go down the pay what you want route? It's a business decision that she has made (or at least, sold the rights to make that decision to others through contracts and the like). If Rihanna didn't want her fans to be breaking the law by downloading her music illegally she would not make her music illegal to download. She would make it free.

> Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money? Is there any proof that the majority of down-loaders would have bought the "art" in the first place? Its mostly grazing.

Does there need to be? People are taking something for free, something someone is trying to sell and does not want to be taken for free. Surely that is enough for illegal sharing of music to be considered bad? If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free.

> OK, fair enough, capitalism is capitalism, so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers?

huh? Please can you elaborate on what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the media companies should either develop DRM that can't be broken, or that they should make their product attractive enough that it won't be stolen? If so, doesn't that argument extend to cars? BMW should make a BMW so attractive post purchase ("You can only start the car using finger prints!") that nobody would steal a BMW and if they don't make that the case then they deserve for the cars to be stolen?

> Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so? The law is government/public money, its just like pumping cash in to failing businesses. Its stealth socialism.

Huh, if a business has a product and people are taking that product without agreeing to the terms set out by the business that owns the rights to that product (eg: downloading a song for free when the business wants $0.99 to download a copy) shouldn't the government protect that? Just like if any business should expect to be able to control their product (within the confines of the law)?

> The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value. Its that really not enough? It certainly was for Louis CK.

I'm sorry but that's a laughably misguided statement. People pirate media because they don't want to pay for it. The evidence of this is EVERYWHERE, you included an example yourself: people pirated the Louis CK special[1][3]. People pirated "World Of Goo", a DRM free PC game that had ~90% piracy rates[2]. People pirate because they don't want to pay: the only way to prevent that is to include incredibly restrictive DRM (see: Steam) masked as some sort of "extra service"[3].

[1] https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/6878474/Louis_ck_-_Lo...

[2] http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/

[3] Even Steam games (eg: L4D) have huge piracy rates and Steam is considered a fantastic service with excellent sales (L4D has been as low as $2): http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/7470070/Left_4_Dead_2-...