Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 1536882" data-attributes="member: 158">The Sigil brought this same point up as well, and I still have to admit, that as logic goes, this one is still escaping me. I must have a mental wall against this point, because it still doesn't make sense to me.Here's my train of thought: If most people who download illegal copies wouldn't pay for it anyway if they couldn't download it, then they wouldn't have the product in possession. And that's perfectly OK.Yet here they are, in possession of a copy. That's the part that doesn't add up if it's not a lost sale.Why do they own the copy, if they do not wish to own it? It's not analogous to someone mailing it to them without their knowledge; it does take conscious and willing searching and acquisition. Therefore, if someone wouldn't want (and by extension, purchase) a copy if they were denied it otherwise, then why are they expending the effort in the first place?I get on a dirt-basic level that the vendor won't be getting the money either way, but there's more to the picture than that. If one desires an item enough, one will obtain it, somehow, legally or illegally is up to the person. If one doesn't desire it enough, then one won't bother to obtain it, legally or otherwise. And the latter is OK - it's a founding law of commerce.To want something, and NOT pay fair market value for it, and get it anyway? It does not to me add up to say that's not a &quot;lost sale.&quot; It's kind of like leaving the equals sign, and still calling it an equation. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 1536882, member: 158"] The Sigil brought this same point up as well, and I still have to admit, that as logic goes, this one is still escaping me. I must have a mental wall against this point, because it still doesn't make sense to me. Here's my train of thought: If most people who download illegal copies wouldn't pay for it anyway if they couldn't download it, then [I]they wouldn't have the product in possession.[/I] And that's perfectly OK. Yet here they are, in possession of a copy. That's the part that doesn't add up if it's not a lost sale. Why do they own the copy, if they do not wish to own it? It's not analogous to someone mailing it to them without their knowledge; it does take conscious and willing searching and acquisition. Therefore, if someone wouldn't want (and by extension, purchase) a copy if they were denied it otherwise, then why are they expending the effort in the first place? I get on a dirt-basic level that the vendor won't be getting the money either way, but there's more to the picture than that. If one desires an item enough, one will obtain it, somehow, legally or illegally is up to the person. If one doesn't desire it enough, then one won't bother to obtain it, legally or otherwise. And the latter is OK - it's a founding law of commerce. To want something, and NOT pay fair market value for it, and get it anyway? It does not to me add up to say that's not a "lost sale." It's kind of like leaving the equals sign, and still calling it an equation. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification