Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldim
That's assuming there's losses; maybe you guys all win out!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabredog
I do think the losses are exaggerated. Losses are certainly there, but just like the movie and music industry, people download music or movies they would never, ever buy. There never was a sale lost in the first place.
|
Okay, I might as well say here and now that this has never sat well with me. The statement that a person who pirated a book "would never, ever buy it" doesn't change the fact that he has it now... that makes it a copy that has not been paid for, and therefore,
a lost sale caused by theft.
In much the same way as a man plucks an apple from an orchard, it doesn't matter whether he eats it, throws it away, or gives it to a horse: The fact is, he took it, and that makes it a lost sale through theft. The fact that he says he wouldn't have paid for it is immaterial to the fact that he took it.
By that logic, I dismiss the "It isn't a lost sale" rhetoric as specious. It's just another way to excuse theft.
Which begs the question:
Why are we spending so much effort concocting excuses for theft? If the act was right and permissible, why would we need excuses for it?
This is why I say there's a lot more going on here than numbers.
BUT... since you're all talking about numbers anyway... I'll simply point out that O'Leary himself agreed that the numbers
suggest, but
do not actually point to, a correlation between guesstimates of loss and actual sales increases, because the numbers are only approximations. He might as well have said they point to sales downturns, or they point to my street address, or they point to the Age of Aquarius, for all the direct correlation he has.
I just don't see where this effort is going to lead to any useful information.