It's been widely recognized that the majority of piracy is committed by people who would not spend the money on the item anyway, or in cases where it is actually difficult to buy the item.
There's a reason cheap & easy access to media (streaming) has reduced piracy.
People are willing to pay for something if it has value, is offered at a reasonable price and is easy to purchase and own.
What about other items?
E.g., someone who pirates a graphics editing program that costs several hundred dollars indeed might not have purchased it if piracy had not been available, so arguably that piracy did not cost that software maker a sale.
But if piracy had not been an option, would they have just given up on doing their graphics editing? Or would they have looked around for something else instead? Maybe they would have bought Pixelmator Pro, for example, which is under $30, and can do a lot of things that people pirate the more expensive programs for.
Personally, I don’t like the argument “they weren’t going to buy it anyways.” So you get to enjoy the software or movie, and it’s no harm done because you weren’t going to buy it anyways? I think a lot of times this is a cop out excuse. In my mind, and just as your graphics example points out somebody somewhere lost an opportunity or a sale. Not saying there aren’t cases where pirating is justified, but I often get the feeling a lot of people are holding on to excuses that don’t apply specifically to justify their 6 TB Plex library.
Anecdotally though, I think over the long term piracy can be balanced out. I pirated a load of games and software when I was younger with no disposable income which I have now purchased - I could argue the point I'd never have gotten into some hobbies if I hadn't had the piracy option, and they never would have got the purchase later down the line.
Totally get where you're coming from though, I don't think it's as black and white as maybe I had previously thought.
If you look at a graph of music sales over time, you can see that the 1990s were a great time for the music business.[1] CDs brought in increasing revenue until the early 2000s, when they precipitously declined. Legal downloads did not make up for the decline in CD sales. Streaming eventually halted the decline, but revenue only stabilized around 2010-2015. In other words, the music industry had a really tough decade.
Of course, the music industry also has itself to blame. CDs were expensive, and who wants to pay $20 for an album that only has one song worth listening to? The industry only embraced downloads and streaming once they had no other choice.
There's a good documentary on this: System Shock.[2]
1. https://blogs.sas.com/content/graphicallyspeaking/files/2019...
The reason for the decline is pretty clear: music was free and convenient to get online, and CDs were expensive.
If they'd not been so greedy and got involved in mp3 downloads and streaming earlier they might not have had such a hard time.
Like your final point, it could easily be argued that piracy has actually forced industries to pursue more consumer friendly practices that they would otherwise have ignored.
I'll check out that documentary, it sounds interesting