> I’ve always been of the impression that the vast majority of people pirating wouldn’t have bought it anyways.
I used to generally believe this as well, but then services like Spotify, Apple Music, Youtube, etc. came along and put an end to the golden age of music piracy. Maybe these people wouldn't have bought the book at a full retail price, but there is very likely a price they would have paid to get the book in a convenient manner. Even the article basically admits as much. The author's complaint isn't the price, it is the convenience.
> services like Spotify, Apple Music, Youtube, etc
Which are all subscription-based and not unit-based. There is no cost to explore and listen to random songs when you've already paid your subscription anyway. Switch to unit-based and suddenly way less exploration. So it's unit-less pricing + convenience.
Fundamentally exploration is much more important for music than it is for books due to the time it takes to consume a single unit. Either way, usually the most important part is showing that a customer is willing to make the jump from $0 to $0.01 and there are numerous music services that have shown that pirates are willing to make that leap in the right circumstances.
It solves part of the problem but quickly imposes a tragedy of the commons. These sub-10$ services pay peanuts to the creators. In order to make any meaningful money you have to have millions or hundreds of millions of views. To reach that scale you have to create something appetising to the masses which frequently entails clichés and sub-standard work. I do hear plenty of songs, movies, books rehashing the same old things following a cookie cutter approach.
I do remember reading a twitter thread of creator who sold books and earned a six figure income when a youtube creator chimed in and reported earning less than $300 for more than million views. Not an apples to apples comparison but you quickly see how youtube/spotify would actually create market pressures which discourage people from creating works of cultural and social significance.
In such a world, books like GEB and Piketty’s Capital would never see the light of the day.
It seems as though taste has not been improving with the Internet's adoption. I was just reflecting on this today and how SEOs rank according to "reputation", which is now just a network of mass media publishers which fill out the first 3-5 search pages. "Reputation" in the 90's was drastically different than today, where the average webmaster was likely a professor.
Also, what's noticeable with cultural works or "products" is the purchasing behavior is very much a crowd-effect. Very few people are inquisitive about such products; they will likely commit to a buy through word-of-mouth, and even then it may be after the 2nd or 3rd different person recommended a film or book. So the "psychology" of such purchases also favors the mass consumer who is looking for some temporary amusement, rather than a soul pathfinder looking for their chords to be plucked.
I used to generally believe this as well, but then services like Spotify, Apple Music, Youtube, etc. came along and put an end to the golden age of music piracy. Maybe these people wouldn't have bought the book at a full retail price, but there is very likely a price they would have paid to get the book in a convenient manner. Even the article basically admits as much. The author's complaint isn't the price, it is the convenience.