Does anyone besides me find it difficult to follow the logic behind sentiments like these?

1) "Internet and DVD piracy cost major Hollywood movie studios $6.1 billion in lost revenue last year, according to a study commissioned by the film industry's trade group."

2) Converting to solar power and/or cleaning up the environment would cost the economy so much that it's not worth doing, i.e. too expensive.



For #1, doesn't that assume the people who made the copies would pay for them if they couldn't make the copies in the first place? Seems to me that if it were somehow physically impossible to copy DVDs, a large number of people would simply do without, or borrow a friend's legitimate copy, if they had to pay for them otherwise. Thus, Hollywood isn't actually losing any money here, because they wouldn't be making it in the first place.


For #2, certainly those kind of conversions and clean-ups cost a lot of money, but if you bought solar power gear from American companies and hired American firms for clean-ups, wouldn't it be a net null gain/loss for the economy as a whole?



Are these just cases of vested and very biased interests or lobbyists making spurious claims?


What am I missing here?