TL;DR: NO (but we should define what "ignoring" means; from the text of the question I suspect we're actually of the same opinion).
You do not "ignore" a threat. The ancient saw says that you do not fear a threat that you cannot avoid - stultum est timere quod vitare non potes, since fear will avail you nothing.
But few threats are completely unavoidable in their every aspect and consequence, and do not in the least benefit from consideration, so that all that remains is saving some time by ignoring them.
You cannot avoid death for example, but you still endeavour to delay it as much as possible with medicine and lifestyle; you plan for it with insurances and a will; you mitigate its consequences on those you care for, and if and where possible and legal, you try and mitigate consequences on yourself (those consequences you can).
It is exactly the same thing with lesser threats (minus the religious implications).
You start by defining the threat and its attack surface. You then evaluate
whether you can, and at what costs, reduce that attack surface. That is where
the "rethink the business model" part might come in. Or even the "abandon the
project altogether" or "dump it on someone else".
Then you know that you have a vulnerability, but this still leaves you with
the problem of determining whether that vulnerability is being exploited, and
how much, and what the damage actually is. In the content duplication scenario this would mean deploying some sensor capable of telling you what is being illegally copied, and how much. In several jurisdictions you cannot do anything until and unless you can quantify an economic damage, or the risk thereof.
Knowing the damage (actual and potential) also is key to choosing a strategy. You might choose to do nothing (but continue monitoring!) if the damage turned out to be minimal, and likely to remain minimal; or if the damage
has also a bright side - for example: illegal copying of a software also means that there is an illegal user base that would not otherwise be there, and a part of that user base needs to go legit at some time or another. Think an office suite that you get illegally familiar with when a student, and then offer in your CV, and/or influences the purchase choices of a big firm (do they go with UnknownOffice v1.0? Or do they prefer WellKnownOffice 1.0? This reflects on the availability of skilled users -- and, therefore, on their wages). You would "lose" a lot of users that you would never have gained anyway - huge virtual loss, zero revenue loss - and gain some users that
you would not have had otherwise. You still maybe need to look into a Home or Student licensing, or offering a free trial or open limited version, but the fact is that in this case your "threat" would actually be helping you.
If the damage turns out to be huge, you can look into other strategies (possibly political - can not legislation be changed to make prosecuting possible? - or technical - how about a dongle system? Only supplying live streams to authenticated users? Getting out your own incompatible viewing system? - these are all very costly options that would also impact diffusion, so you need hard data to justify even considering them).
Then, there being a damage does not mean that you accept it passively. Some parts of the damage could be contained or otherwise limited, reduced, or their impact lessened somehow.
You can proactively adopt strategies designed to defuse a part of the danger, or reflect it back on the source. Just shooting the wind here, but if you routinely release a lower quality version of a digital content after a fixed time from official release, you're bound to severely demotivate a significant fraction of illegal copiers (as well as, in some jurisdictions, make the case harder on those who do copy). This decreases availability of illegal copies and may increase revenue. That's one theory, of course: one would need to
put it to the test. And then maybe experiment with different qualities and delays to see which is most effective. You could put bounties on whistleblowers: I remember an anti-piracy scheme in which you could turn a pirated license into a legal one at almost no cost, provided you could produce a proof of purchase of the pirated material. This did nothing against home piracy, but the risk of supplying software illegally to a small/medium business was enormous; whatever you charged for the software, you could never beat a zero cost license.