I disagree. There are many people who, before buying a product, check to see if they can get it for free. If they can't they buy it. If they can't, they don't.
It's for that specific reason if I can't download illegal, free copy of something, I just steer away from it. No matter how tempted I was to buy something, I try my utmost to never give in to the temptation. For that reason also, I have thousands of magic videos and ebooks at my disposal, thousands of effects explained, magic theory. Few of them I have even read. I just love the Internet for how it enables me to get so much information so quickly and easily, when back in ye olde days I would have had to buy that material, or maybe find someone who owns that and loan it until I learn the trick(s).
I find it funny how people insist that the slow, inefficient and costly way is the ethical one. You get all sorts of fantastic rationalizations, like people being somehow morally obliged to not reveal something they know to others because someone who earlier imparted that knowledge wants to make money with it, or my personal favorite, because we should enforce appreciation of effects by forcing people to pay for them, because paying for something makes you appreciate it more.
Of course, the magic community actually wants the scarcity the copyright system offers. You don't want knowledge of conjuring to be abundant, because that would mean others could use this knowledge too, which would make it more difficult for you to make money by selling stuff to other magicians, to fool people that don't want to be fooled, and generally stay on top of younger magicians that don't have yet had enough money to buy all the knowledge you have. Oh how would that threaten the status quo, and your personal power over both large groups of people and the flow of cash. Luckily there's a device to stop information from propagating, in theory. Sure, you would get lots of advances in the art of conjuring if you just allowed the information to propagate, but since that advancement would require almost everyone in the community to give up some of the power they hold over others, that's unthinkable by almost anyone, but maybe some young rebels that don't yet stand to gain from the status quo. Those rebels can try to voice disagreement before they either get sealed out of the system or get lured in, gaining some tidbits of power that they would have to relinquish should the change come.
Anyhow, the main point was made in the comment you were answering to: several studies show that there's virtually no evidence of piracy actually harming producers, rather, some studies even find it to have small positive effect on the cash flow in total. However, that cash flow changes a bit, some of the cash flow that would in no-piracy scenario go to big-name producers, in piracy scenario go to lesser known producers that gain from piracy as free advertising. However, no one will never ever care about such results of studies. "it harms producers" is actually a false argument, not because it's true or false, but because no one actually believes pirating is bad because of it. The real reason is some contrived belief-system that the amount of production that would happen if piracy was tolerated more, would be less, and the value of that missing production was so huge that no gains elsewhere in the system may ever justify that. This is however never spelled out, so we are left with this stupid false argument that no one actually even cares about, and thus, when this false argument is proven wrong(or right, for that matter), it doesn't concern anyone one iota.