Sort of like putting measures in place so that pirates are using more of a trial version of your software. I think this is the way most new programs are going these days. But that still doesn't solve the music aspect of pirating. What bonus stuff can you give over the music that can convert a considerable number of the pirates to paying customers?
Except for the tiny percentage of superstars, musical artists have always made more money through live performances than recording contracts. Ticket sales, merchandise and other such revenues are much less susceptible to pirating.
Be that as it may, can you see that it's legitimate for a musician to want to make, record, and sell music - not an associated industry of products? And there are fans who don't go to concerts or buy t-shirts, but really like listening to music? If you're a fan like that, and you don't give back to the artist at some point, you're making it less likely that the recordings you want will be made in the future.
Notice that I'm not throwing around moral claims. I'm just making an observation. If you want something to be made, and it costs time and money to make, you can encourage its creation or not. But don't complain that the music selection sucks if you don't financially support the music you like.
The shame is, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want it to work. I don't know about you, but I like the fact that I can listen to recorded music and not have to go to a live performance.
> And there are fans who don't go to concerts or buy t-shirts, but really like listening to music?
While buying music is one solution, another approach is donating to the artist. (And with easy piracy, both amount to the same thing modulo middle-man.)
I'm someone who used to download music (even for albums I own, it's more convenient than ripping myself). I've now transitioned completely to Spotify. There is an argument to be made about how much money the artists actually get, but as a consumer the benefits over piracy are well worth the price.
