And if enough people pay the ransom, it makes it very much worth their time to invest in improving this malware. We've seen it with ACCDFISA, started with 200 or 300 dollar and ended at 4000 or 5000.
100% agreed on the system as a whole. Unfortunately the world doesn't run on ideals. Most businesses that are surviving, do so by making the choice of what is best for them, and occasionally what is best for their customers. A company is most likely not able to survive by basing their decisions on what is best for the internet as a whole, Expecting people to think like this, is roughly like trying to sell to a business to buy their parts from company X, which sells the exact same product as company Y, for twice the price, but is american based and doesn't use a sweat shop. Yes if everyone took the ideals route, all companies would have the same price, more money would be in the country and thus more people able to buy the end product and everyone wins. But businesses are pretty much under the assumption that at least one if not all competitors will do it the cheap way and undercut everyone else, making them pre-emptively match.
In order to get people to stop funding criminal groups like this, you need a reason of why it is worse, for them personally. Why is accepting what is quite possibly $1,000-10,000 (under the assumption of only 1 days worth of data would the numbers be this low) worth of loss a better idea for them personally than losing $100-$300. The possibility that maybe they will be hit again?, if so is the possibility that they will be hit again eliminated if they don't pay?
I agree that if we could stop everyone from paying, the developers would be forced to stop... but can we plausibly get everyone at the same time to agree not to?