Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

The paper says the artists made the increase on live performance and less on digital/physical sales. In adult industry that would correspond to making more money on live sexshows or dating, which is also happening (by various sponsors paying and profit indirectly such thievery). But that doesn't mean the ones not perfoming live make more money and it's not an excuse for stealing others artistic work to promote another service. So the argument using file-sharing as "promotion" for an "overall" industry is basically flawed.

The paper is also limited to an isolated economy. They didn't include trade export or import. In adult industry that would correspond to excluding worldwide internet trade.

You can't compare two complete different products, complete different market situations (including laws), one industry that is subsidiziated with one industry that is not and never will be, and then conclude and talk about adaption.

There are many great photographers especially within the art niche and they can't (or will) adapt to live performance. Asking them to do so is like asking a painter to paint live. It's stupid and without any respect for his artistic talent. When some assholes reduce the value of his work by promoting something else or distribute it for free, the result will be less quality or in worst case he move to another niche. No matter how much Torrentfreak troll with their propaganda, Manwin troll with "what our laywers say", it destroys the economy for these artists and, it destroys cultural freedom which is the most shame about it all.