Piracy is victimless, as it doesn’t remove something from the creator. Taking something away would make them a victim. Me not buying a game and not engaging at all with it is the same as not buying a game but still playing it.
You assume every piece of pirated media would otherwise be bought, this is not true at all.
You assume every piece of pirated media would otherwise be bought, this is not true at all.
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.
While this is not the case for people that would otherwise not buy the product at all, there are still a number of pirates that would pay for something if a pirated version did not exist, and so there is an effect.
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?
The makers of a game don’t lose anything.
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.
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.
Piracy is victimless, as it doesn’t remove something from the creator. Taking something away would make them a victim. Me not buying a game and not engaging at all with it is the same as not buying a game but still playing it.
You assume every piece of pirated media would otherwise be bought, this is not true at all.
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?