• 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
      ·
      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
        2
        ·
        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
          ·
          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
              ·
              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
                  ·
                  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.

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

                    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.