@[email protected] to People [email protected] • 1 year agoCrunchyrolllemy.lolimagemessage-square530fedilinkarrow-up11.41Karrow-down127file-text
arrow-up11.38Karrow-down1imageCrunchyrolllemy.lol@[email protected] to People [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square530fedilinkfile-text
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•1 year agoNot to consume it at all, obviously. Your measurement for converting potential revenue into loss hinges on those being the only 2 options.
minus-squareZoolanderlinkEnglish-1•1 year agoI have pointed that out as a possibility. Not consuming it at all, though, is not theft precisely because the person isn’t consuming it.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 year agoIn which case piracy only accounts for lost revenue if and only if the pirate would have 100%, guaranteed, purchased the content if a pirates copy was not available. So your calculation does not work.
minus-squareZoolanderlinkEnglish-1•1 year ago if a pirates copy was not available. This is exactly why my calculation does work. If a pirated copy was not available, they wouldn’t be able to consume the media without paying for it.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•1 year agoBut they also wouldn’t have to pay for it. Which is the only way your calculation would work.
Not to consume it at all, obviously.
Your measurement for converting potential revenue into loss hinges on those being the only 2 options.
I have pointed that out as a possibility. Not consuming it at all, though, is not theft precisely because the person isn’t consuming it.
In which case piracy only accounts for lost revenue if and only if the pirate would have 100%, guaranteed, purchased the content if a pirates copy was not available. So your calculation does not work.
This is exactly why my calculation does work. If a pirated copy was not available, they wouldn’t be able to consume the media without paying for it.
But they also wouldn’t have to pay for it. Which is the only way your calculation would work.