With regards to "video piracy", it seems like the folks most worried about it have not really given much thought to consumer behavior with regards to video,which is different than their behavior in other products, such as software(where anti-piracy has a much stronger claim, imo, but not without caveats), and who and how much does the act of piracy really affect their industry.
In the realm of video consumers, you have the buyers, "would buy but won't pay (until the price drops a huge amount and the disc is out of print)", the renters, the "would rent but won't pay", and the the "never will try" . Which group(s) are the most of the downloaders coming from and how does their download affect the industry? When someone downloads a movie or tv show, were they going to shell out money in the first place? If yes, were they going to rent first or would they have bought it outright? The movie industry seems to have labelled virtually everyone as BUYERS trying to avoid purchasing an optical disk or going to the movie theatre. In this case, the downloaded file replaces the optical disk/trip to the movie theatre and enjoys multiple rewatches. But what if most downloaders are actually renters or "guys who wouldn't rent but evaluate"?(this is a hypothetical question) In that case, they are not skimping out on the paying for the optical disk or movie theatre trip, but rather the fee charged by services such as Blockbuster, Netflix, etc.
One thing that will happen for sure is that watching a movie has a transformative effect on the viewer. He'll either toss it or he'll like it. In the latter scenario, the buyer will want to buy or he'll be "keep and rewatch" the downloaded file. The question of whether the "transformed liker" is more likely to go and buy the "real deal" products or if they'll just sit on their ass and just rewatch the file.
So, the two big unknowns about the video downloader is 1. whether he's a buyer, a renter, or a "would rent but won't pay" guy and 2. what does he do after watching the video. Question 1 would help idenfitfy which companies actually might be affected and Question 2 would help answer just how much of an effect video piracy in its current form has on various companies.
I'm not closed to the idea piracy might hurt companies, but they'll have to prove it is the case first and that this is not a case of the corporate animal trying to amass
market power(economics definition) for itself.
Oh, and for those who have "ethical issues" with pirates, note that
utilitarian ethics usually reigns supreme in corporate culture. In layman's terms, the consequences are all that matters(Make spending power=good. Lose spending power=bad. Laws are just a means to achieve that end). The fat cats would screw their workers for chump change if possible. In video, the alleged piracy effects affects the money controllers(the top executives) first, the ones they're trying to garner sympathy for(workers, even the directors) second.
Note: This post is mainly an attempt to form description of the situation regarding "VIDEO PIRACY".