This *should* be classical, first year economics.
If I want to purchase a car, and the dealership down the road sells one with features I need for $25K, and the one up the block sells one with features I need for $20K then I'm likely to buy from the dealership up the block. Not only will I save money, but if others do the same it may have the added effect of applying downward pressure to the price at the dealership down the road. But personally, I won't really care about that other, more expensive dealership, or how much they charge, or whether I think their prices are "a rip off". I've got what I need, and cheaper too.
A lot of people who are against copyright or intellectual property will point out how many bands (for example -- substitute comedians if you wish) release their work for free, or for very low cost on the internet. But then why should anyone "need" to fileshare? Why should anyone have to share content from Justin Beiber if there's plenty of totally free content they could legitimately have and listen to? Who gives a rat's ass if Justin Beiber's record label charges "too much" for one of his albums? There are plenty of free or inexpensive alternatives, right?
"Make good stuff, then make it easy for people to buy it. There's your anti-piracy plan."
Some content producers do this. So why is there still piracy?