From a historic perspective, musicians have never really considered records to be a good source of revenue. The records themselves are the property of the record company who initially footed the bill for production and distribution. They take the financial risk, and they in turn are the primary beneficiary of the profits. Musicians traditionally employ recordings as a means of advertising in order to draw customers to performances (their primary means of revenue).
To say that piracy hurts musicians is a bit misleading the vast majority do not see much in the way of profits from record sales, and free distribution of the material creates greater awareness and interest in attending performances. There are exceptions, but they are not common.
The primary victim in piracy is the record company. I consider piracy to be inappropriate, but the means employed to combat it are worse. For the most part the traditional entertainment industries have failed to adapt to the new distribution medium and instead attempt to legislate and litigate their way to profitability.
The primary motivation to pirate is not cost, but availability. The cinema is an obsolete model that only maintains its existence through special deals of exclusivity. Were major film producers to immediately release their product online (for a fee) piracy would drop, profits for the producers would increase, and the cinemas would bankrupt unless they dramatically adapted their business model.
The only adaptation I see is in smaller firms which fully embrace digital distribution (my favorite example is when Freddie Wong endorsed the Pirate Bay torrent of his VGHS series).