Quote from Yoorah;753041:
Nope. Product devaluation also means consumers choose to buy the product less often. And there is no moral justification for allowing piracy to compete with people who actually work and make the goods.
There's no moral justification for using the power of the state to guarantee a profit from your work. I thought we dumped this silly labor theory of value thing in 91. Don't like piracy? Provide a good that can't be pirated easily, and adds value. If you can't, shut up and deal.
Is there some truth to it? Sure, there is a tiny fraction, just like with everything else in life--but it's pretty insignificant when you look at the bigger picture. The biggest problem this kind of thinking poses to the IP owners is that it discourages purchases from potential customers. To understand this, you need to remember that when someone considers making a non-essential purchase, they always weigh how much they want the product vs what they believe is an acceptable cost. If the only way the product can be feasibly obtained is through legitimate purchase, then people are indeed forced to weigh that balance. Some will buy it because they want it and they don't mind the price. Many others, however will want to buy it, but will have to make an extra effort to save up cash for it (kid wants a new expensive games console).
Of course, you forget lots of other things that go into buying decisions. For example, convenience, accessibility, features (such as online play), as well as actually liking the product enough to spend money on it.
But after Rich Kid and Hardworking Kid buy their games, they run into some Loser Kids who tell 'em that they wasted their money because they could have pirated instead, like so many people do all the time. And unlike with stealing from a physical store, the likelihood of getting caught is extremely low. Do you truly believe that the Rich Kid and the Hardworking Kid will legitimately buy the next game that comes out? Chances are that they will join the Loser Kids instead.
This is an assumption, and one that's been constantly proven false at that.
Piracy exists, is easy, and is risk-free. Yet people still buy media on a consistent basis. In fact,
pirates actually buy more stuff than non-pirates.
So why do people buy games even with the ease of piracy? Firstly, non-pirated goods have certain characteristics that differentiate themselves from pirated goods, such as physical copies, better technical support, better compatibility, online access, etc. It seems like pirates use their disposable income to buy stuff, and then when they run out of income, they pirate stuff until they get more disposable income.
But think about this for a bit. Is everyone entitled to having access to the best of the best, regardless of the cost? What about companies and products that cater to the more affordable price segments, trying to target said teenager?
You mean like sales of used media that don't make any product of the creator anyway? Also, if we're talking about teenagers, they'll likely use something open-source/free anyway.
An example would be software such as Paint Shop Pro. It used to be a very popular alternative to Photoshop, as I remember. Many of the indie game devs in my community would use it, since it provided most of Photoshop's functionality that they needed for their projects, but at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, as file "sharing" grew in popularity, JASC Software, the makers of PSP, were eventually bought out by Corel in 2004. PSP has since then been re-branded several times and I don't know if anyone still uses it. It's a shame, and this is just one case--there are many more.
Yeah, gonna need some evidence it was "file-sharing" that killed JASC Software, especially since file-sharing was barely even around in 2004. Also, sounds like a bit of a market failure there if PSP is good enough to provide most of the functionality at 20% of the cost. Either that or PSP isn't as good as you are implying it is.
And of course, price and access affect piracy rates as well. So I also wonder how much cheaper PSP was than Photoshop?
And again, if you're going to use teenagers or other people without means, they're not downloading a 200 dollar alternative to Photoshop, they're downloading an open-source alternative, or using Paint.
So really, just think and connect the dots. Whether it's a digital copy or a physical theft, both translate into damages and lost sales, whether direct or indirect. Unfortunately, economic damage spreads out and affects other people, namely jobs in the industry, which is part of the motivation for the government to take stronger action against illegal file sharing.
Sounds more like either a case of overpriced goods that likely wouldn't be purchased anyway combined with a desire to blame piracy for said goods not selling. Notice that the cheaper products are pirated less - while all being "free" in theory. Sounds like people pirate when *gasp* they don't have the money to buy the product period, and not having enough money seems to point to not being a lost sale!
This, I can understand and won't argue against. People are generally greedy and without proper enforcement of the law, there is no helping it.. human nature and all. Just look back at what happened during the chaos of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. No police presence meant lots of looting and raping.
>comparing theoretical profits with looting and rape
anti-pirate logic at work people.
And I notice you don't whine about used sales, despite also being "lost sales".