Some of it has been debunked, some of it has been proven less than honest

Several studies have backed up what Bas says here. Not just his own data, but data among several studies, done over several years, in many different parts of the Western world. It has not been “debunked” nor even shown to be “less than honest.” Those descriptions are better given to studies commissioned by organizations who have a fiduciary interest in stronger IP laws.

There is no indication that they would buy more, buy less, or anything else,

You are absolutely right about this…

only proof that the pirates are the same small group of people who have a high interest in music, regardless of piracy.

…but absolutely wrong about this. That is your conclusion – one which you yourself are admitting cannot be made, in the very same sentence no less. The only thing the data shows is a corrolation between piracy and music purchases. That’s it. Correlation does not show causation. It could be that they pirate because they are “superfans,” or it could be that they are “superfans” because they pirate. Or neither.

My guess is that it’s a reciprocal causation; a kind of snowball effect. A person, who otherwise would be a casual consumer, is turned into a fan, because the ability to pirate makes more music available to them, thus generating more interest in music overall. This interest increases the tendency both to pirate music, and to purchase it. So, on the one hand, people who are already fans would probably make more purchases if they could not pirate; but without piracy, there would be far fewer fans, thus fewer purchases overall.

Even if my guess is wrong, one thing is shown by this (and all other) data: people who are pirates are also people who are the music industry’s best customers.

There is no indication that their buying habits are any different from the same group 20 years ago. Nobody has been able to explain away that issue.

You’re joking, right? Nearly every study of consumer habits has explained how buying habits have shifted dramatically. Put simply, there has been no reduction in individual music purchases – by unit, music sales have increased every year. What has fallen has been profits from these purchases. This is because buying habits have shifted from buying album-based, physical media (CD’s), to purchasing a la carte digital media (iTunes or Amazon downloads). I’ve yet to find a single study that shows otherwise.

And it’s no wonder the decline in CD sales have resulted in decline in profits. CD’s were deliberately overpriced because consumers didn’t have other purchasing choices. Simply put, the 90’s boom from CD sales is a byproduct of an industry cabal that could effectively function as gatekeepers. When you’re a monopolistic cabal, it’s easy to do things like illegal price fixing, deliberately kill singles, or abandon independent retailers for chain stores like Wal-Mart. The drop in profits is a direct result of greater consumer choice.

The digital revolution has shifted purchasing habits in other, more profound, ways as well. For example, look at the conclusions from this 2007 study from Ipsos:

Data suggest that the answer lies in what could be referred to as the “impulse gap.” Namely ? that the increase in the number of digital music acquisition options, including on-demand downloading and easy unfettered copying, have slowly eaten away at consumer impulse music purchases ? thus creating a gap in revenue. Where in the past someone may have purchased a CD from a new or unfamiliar artist on a whim, they are increasingly more likely to digitally sample the music before deciding to make a full physical CD purchase.

So, please, stop with the casual dismissals. You’re not adding anything to the conversation.