111
theft enjoyers
(lemmynsfw.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
111 points (86.3% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
342 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It seems like you didn’t read all of what I wrote and instead only saw the last section. I did not assume that and reaffirm that piracy does in fact have victims.
No, I read it. It just has little to no bearing on the point, which is that there is still no victim. The makers of a game don't lose anything. They just don't realize a gain. A pirate is just as bad, and only as bad, as someone who doesn't make a purchase.
Then why did you state that I assumed something where, I can clearly point out where I did not assume that? I guess maybe I just wasn't being clear, or maybe stating it in a convoluted way?
I'm not arguing that the makers of the game are the victim. I'm arguing that the other consumers are. By some people pirating content that they would otherwise pay for, they are are passing on the cost of that content on to others. Normies are the victims of pirating.
I have this feeling that you don't want to be painted as a bad guy and again, I'm not attacking you personally. I'm again reaffirming that piracy does in fact have victims.
Then are consumers also victim to people who refuse to buy the game because they are simply not interested? The mechanism is the same.
The harm is only caused by those that would have bought the game if the avenue of piracy did not exist.
And the harm is in no way different from someone not buying the game because they aren't interested in the game.
No, there is a difference, and my apologies for not responding to your statement about the mechanism.
The mechanism of harm caused by the first group (those that would have bought the game if the avenue of piracy did not exist), is that by choosing to pirate instead, they are removing their contribution to the profitability of the company and causing an increase in price to remain profitable. These increased prices cause undue burden only on those people purchasing the product.
There is no mechanism of harm caused by the second group (someone not buying the game because they aren’t interested in the game). In this case there would be no alternative action if the avenue of piracy did not exist because this group would still not purchase the game.
And the creator of the piece of media can tell the difference... How?
So you agree there is a difference then.
edit: Revisiting this, as I've said before:
You seem unwilling to hold a consistent picture in this dialogue as you keep trying to argue the same thing.
I'm asking you how the creator of the piece of media can tell the difference, because they can't.
If I make a chair, and someone steals it, I'm down a chair. If I make a chair and someone doesn't buy it, I still have the chair. There's a difference to the creator here that isn't there with digital media. That's why piracy and theft are not the same thing.
You seem unwilling to hold a consistent picture in this dialogue as you keep trying to argue the same thing.
edit: and the answer to how a creator would tell the difference is between the incomes of the two events, one with piracy, another without.