Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1542537" data-attributes="member: 2013">Dana... you are heavily indoctrinated into the "IP is Property, it is mine, you steal it from me..." (probably because you have produced quite a bit of it).  Let go of your inherent biases for a moment and please try to listen to what I am saying here.I am NOT saying that copyright infringement is "okay" or that it does not lead to a loss of revenue.  Of COURSE it contributes to a loss of revenue in a very similar way shoplifting does.  But...I call bullcrap.  The download of files without paying for them is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.  It is not theft.  Theft deprives you of use of your own item.  Copyright infringement does not.  "Intellectual Property" does not belong to you.  It belongs to the public because the act of sharing an idea naturally spreads it at no cost in the same way that if you light a torch from my torch, you have in no way diminished the light I carry.  We are both enriched.  It belongs to the public BUT as an incentive for your work expended to encapsulate an idea (which cannot be copyrighted) into an expression in tangible medium (which can be copyrighted), the public graciously grants you the exclusive right to distribute your expression of the idea for a limited time... after which all rights revert to the original owners: all of humanity individually and collectively.  Please divorce yourself from the concept of "I wrote it, it's MINE" for a moment to look at that view of copyright (which is, I think, the more correct one - otherwise having stuff pass into the public domain would be the public in general stealing something you owned).By leaving behind the "MINE" attitude, you will be able to better understand the point I was trying to make...Please stop calling it "theft."  It is not.  There is a reason we have a different set of laws for "copyright infringement" than for "stealing physical objects" - because the two are VERY different beasts by nature.My point about demand curves was simply this...Ralts has two data points.  He has the number of people that legitimately purchased his product.  He has the number of people that downloaded a "free" product.Go back to basic geometry, and you'll find that two data points are NEVER considered enough to define a curve.  Therefore, there is NOT ENOUGH DATA to quantify losses because there is NOT ENOUGH DATA to figure out the equation of the curve.I am NOT saying no infringement occured.  I am not saying no "lost sales" occurred (I think we both can agree that one instance of infringement does not necessarily equal one lost sale).All I AM saying that with just these two data points, it is literally impossible to justify putting out a number that represents a "quantifiable expression of lost sales."  Ralts put forward a figure of $1200.  You put forth a figure an order of magnitude higher.My point is simply, "you have no good scientific evidence to justify any dollar amount put forward because you do not have enough data points to provide a curve."  I believe the answer to "how many sales dollars have been lost" is greater than zero, but I have no clue as to whose figure is "more correct" as a representation of reality.This is NOT justifying infringement.  This is not an attempt to explain it and "make it right."  This is NOT trying to downplay lost sales dollars.  This IS an attempt to say, "I'm a scientist by training.  From a purely scientific standpoint, the data you have collected is woefully insufficient to justify any specific number you decide to put forward."Simply put, while there are lost sales there, the data given suggests $1 as easily as it suggests $1200 as easily as it suggests $12,000 as easily as it suggests $12,000,000.  So please stop trying to tell people, "piracy is responsible for $X not being in a wallet" because THE DATA IS INSUFFICIENT.That was all I was trying to get at.  A brick and mortar store can figure out its losses because it can see "we bought 18 and sold 12 and have 3 left.  3 have been stolen, that's a lost sale rate of 16.7%"  The data provided DOES NOT and CANNOT be used to justify any specific dollar amount, and frankly, I'm tired of seeing you claim it does.  As a scientist, when I see your claims and your data, my only conclusion is: "To come up with any dollar figure on the data provided is simply blowing smoke out of an orifice."  You simply cannot support your dollar figures.I will concede that piracy damages revenue; however, I cannot as a scientist concede in good faith *any* specific number with the incomplete data set we have.I learn a lot from your posts, Dana, and you clearly have lots of experience in the industry, but I just can't accept faulty math to back an argument, which is why I can't accept the numbers you've throwing around in this case.Piracy occurs and it hurts sales.  But we don't have enough data yet to know with any certainty "how much."  That is the beginning and the end of my point.  I would love to see more data to see how much, I just can't bring myself to jump to conclusions that may be flawed because I tried to interpolate with assumptions that may or may not be tainted by my view of the value of my work.True enough that! LOL--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification