[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I mean, again it's the same as shoplifting--minus the loss of a tangible, physical product. Would the person who shoplifted a Snickers bar have bought it if there was a camera etc. and they didn't feel they could get away with it? Of course the loss of the candy bar is a clear lost sale as no one else can buy--so their is a difference of course.

With shoplifting you have
(1) The loss of the physical object.
(2) The loss of the next person who can no longer buy that object.
(3) The potential loss, if the person shoplifting would have bought it anyway.

With copyright infringement 1 and 2 don't exist. You're left with 3, which is only a potential loss, not always a real loss. The real question is, how often would a "pirate" have actually bought the item. There is no answer to that question. Some would tell you "always", others would tell you "never". Neither are correct. Where in the that gray line is the truth?

But I think all the arguments about piracy increasing sales etc. are just bunk the most part, and are mainly just coming from people who pirate stuff to rationalize/justify their actions.

So are the arguemnts about the astronimical amounts of loss that the industry claims they are suffereng. That is just bunk too, coming from people who are trying to rationalize/justify stronger laws/punishments to prop up their business.

The industry is lying just as much as those who are trying to justify piracy. The truth is somewhere in between.

Some people pirate a song to check out a new band etc. and then run out and buy the band's albums, concert tickets etc. But that's not the real issue with piracy. The problem with piracy are those that just pirate everything and never pay for anything.

The REAL issue with piracy are those that pirate when they would have bought. If they pirate everything and never pay for anything, when they wouldn't have paid for anything anyway, that's not a real loss either.

Unfortunately nobody has any idea what those numbers really are.

I think anyone that's been in college from 2000 or so on probably knows/knew plenty of people who downloaded hundreds or thousands of songs, downloaded movies etc. and never bought CDs, never went to the theater etc. Would they have bought ALL those CDs if piracy wasn't so easy?

Anybody from the 80's or 90's knows plenty of people who traded/copied cassette tapes and never bought any themselves. This is nothing new.

No, but most probably would have bought some of them, so some sales were lost. Just hard to quantify it exactly in terms of how many.

That's exactly the point, you can't quantify it.

Loss/harm isn't as easy to quantify as it is with physical items where the store has lost an item that someone would have bought (or they could have returned etc.) eventually. So I just say treat each download as a lost sale in terms of the harm done, as the end result is a person has material they didn't pay for.

Your answer to it not being measurable is to assume 100% loss, and assume every pirate would have bought the material? That's the same nonsense that the industry claims. It's obviously a lie.

It's pretty dangerous to assume there's no loss/harm when digital products are downloaded illegally etc. as that sets a very dangerous precedent for protecting individuals and companies product as we move into a fully digital era in many industries.

It's also just as dangerous to lie about there being 100% loss when you're trying to get the public to pay for your protection.