• Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Necronomicommunist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, I read it.

        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.

        • Necronomicommunist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

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

              • Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                1 year 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.

                  • Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    14
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    So you agree there is a difference then.

                    edit: Revisiting this, as I’ve said before:

                    I’m not arguing that the makers of the game are the victim. I’m arguing that the other consumers are.

                    You seem unwilling to hold a consistent picture in this dialogue as you keep trying to argue the same thing.