This is a terrific point. I think that the reach of what you're saying goes beyond the fights in court, though. The problem is that many people see authorship and invention as ways to make money, period. In fact, the financial benefits should be secondary, or tertiary, or less. But, so, when these folks are starting out, they hope they can get by not being sued for doing things that might, say, read on an IV-held patent. But once they're more in the driver's seat, they see another potential revenue stream in suing on the IP that they now hold. Great analogy to the housing bubble, where people seemingly forgot that houses are ostensibly built to be lived in, and simply saw them as revenue streams (whether to borrow against or flip).
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. They can't afford ALL of their cases to be long and expensive. But that isn't what happens--what happens is that most people who receive a troll's nastygram settle, and that's what props up the troll for the occasional court battle. Some trolls fight them and some don't, but this is an insurance model--large costs are bearable for a small number, since low costs with higher returns are available from the vast majority.
Oh, and two more things: why do you repeat your stupid analogy when I've addressed it directly, and how in the world can you call the tech world "school yard bullies?" In your wildest imagination, can you imagine a world where computer wonks are the bullies in the schoolyard? Or are you basing strength on ability and knowledge?
Listen: just because your gas station sucks and advertises to me the whole time I'm there but gives me no other features, and there's another gas source that's there wherever I need and I can take advantage of whenever I want--with no ads and with great features--that's no one's fault but your own. And maybe if you'd stop trying to follow me around to make sure I don't take some gas out of my tank to help another motorist with the gas I bought from you, that would be an improvement.
I still must be missing something. Spotify etc. may not pay "enough" but how does that implicate me as a user of a legal service? Record companies don't pay "enough," according to far more sources, BTW. And aren't the people complaining so the same ones who dislike the idea of someone downloading content for free, deciding if it's good and if so paying the artist WAY MORE than Spotify (not to mention the labels) would have?
I'm sure there's a Latin term for "you can't have it both ways" but I'm too stupid to understand the above, let alone Latin.
Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
“Both of these artists, despite growing global popularity, saw their incomes collapse in the last decade. There is no other explanation except for the fact that “fans” made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists."
NO OTHER EXPLANATION? How about the economy collapsing over the past decade, such that people had less disposable income and decided not to spend as much of it on music--including the music of these two poor souls? How about estimates of their "growing global popularity" might have either been wrong or simply not correlated to sales and royalties? How about they failed to ensure that their business models evolve, along with technology? How about . . . Jesus, this is pathetic--pegging two suicides, ultimately, to file-sharing, is perhaps the lowest tactic I've seen so far. Not surprising that it's based on the worst logical fail I've seen as well.