Piracy seems to be talked about most by the people and companies who can afford to deal with their claimed loss of sales as a result of it. Industries worth tens of billions, artists worth millions, products also worth millions, these, as far as I can tell, are not being harmed in any way that could justifiably be complained about. I don't think such superstars could realistically be put in a position of poverty by someone choosing to torrent their latest album, or movie, because regardless of piracy they still make enough money to own five houses and a dozen Italian sports cars — in their case, the question of making enough money to live is immaterial. The independent artist seems somehow less troubled by it, perhaps because they are more interested in the work itself, rather than the work as a means to acquire wealth, and also because their fans tend to be more appreciative of the work and the effort behind it, rather than treating it as product to be consumed then thrown away when then next batch of product is released. Obviously these are generalisations, we can point to a number of exceptions to both of them, but I think they are more fact than fiction overall.
I'm wondering, though, to what extent some "artists" are deserving of compensation for their work, and the gross disparity between the apparent monetary value of "pop" and "serious" art. For example: someone who writes a song that goes like "yo, uhuh, what, phat booty bitches, uh, yeah" for approximately four minutes could potentially become a millionaire on the strength of that one song, while a composer of "serious" music is very lucky if they can even get by on commissions, recordings, performances of their work, and they are usually either forced to teach or get some other job as the mainstay of their income.
Is it at all justifiable that this is the case; that the writer of a song which could easily be thrown together in the space of an hour or two is recipient of a six or seven figure sum in recompense for doing approximately nothing, while a work which is put together over many months, perhaps even years, is performed once or twice, recorded if lucky in a very limited release, left for dead soon after, and the person responsible for its realisation receives a meagre sum for their efforts? I'm not trying to say that "pop" music is necessarily crap or that "serious" music is necessarily good, because that isn't true, any genre or tradition in any kind of art has to its name good, bad and inconsequential works, rather that works of quality in both fields are not valued equally, and that even bad works in the former are valued greater than good works in the latter.