111

submitted 2 years ago by ko4la@lemmynsfw.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Necronomicommunist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Then are consumers also victim to people who refuse to buy the game because they are simply not interested? The mechanism is the same.

[+] Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev -16 points 2 years ago

The harm is only caused by those that would have bought the game if the avenue of piracy did not exist.

[-] Necronomicommunist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

And the harm is in no way different from someone not buying the game because they aren't interested in the game.

[+] Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev -16 points 2 years ago

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.