In a sense, yes, but they're also proving that the products they are "boycotting" are so important to them that they cannot do without them, even to make a point that supposedly is very important to them. It doesn't tell the MPAA "you need to provide a more valuable product", it tells them exactly the opposite - their product is so important to them that they can't live without it.
It tells them that if they can manage to game the political system to push the risk of prosecution and/or cost of conviction high enough, then many of those people will pay. In other words, it motivates them to do exactly what they
are doing.
On the other hand, if very large group were to simply stop consuming they would be in a much stronger bargaining position. I don't see that happening though. I just don't believe enough 1st world humans have it in them to pull off something like that.
> Are not all the people who choose to download content without payment already carrying out a form of deafacto boycott?
but they're also proving that the products they are "boycotting" are so important to them that they cannot do without them
That seems like a rather strong conclusion to draw from seeing someone willing to pay no money and assume a negligible risk in order to acquire the product.
In the opinion of the RIAA/MPAA they are. I think that's not necessarily true because many of them are still buying media, just not all of the possible media that interests them.
They're probably still going to the movies, renting or buying DVDs (redbox, Amazon/iTunes, Netflix), listening to music on the radio, buying CDs, paying for cable, etc. A total boycott would be difficult - basically no music, TV, or movies unless they were independently distributed.
Personally, I already mostly do this. Pandora on my way to work is an exception.
