Hasbro makes money, everyone wins

[Ryujin]

Proof that someone is downloading something for free rather than paying to download something is not proof of lost revenue?

Has a -single person- said 'Don't bother getting the subscription, here, I'll send you the files?' Yes? Proof of lost revenue.

Has a -single person- said 'Why get DDI, I have bittorrent?' Proof of lost revenue.

You don't need to prove that someone who did download it would have bought it. You need to prove someone who downloaded it is using it. That's damn easy.

I wish I could live in a happy fairy world where people who download things for free pay for them each and every time, after the fact. Where piracy created profits simply because people who are willing to steal something have the moral integrity to buy it afterwards.

I'm not that naive tho, to believe that.

(As an aside tho, I have no moral objection to downloading digital versions of products you already own.)

As others have tried to make clear, the fact that someone has downloaded something illegally in no way proves that they would have paid for it otherwise. As I said; evidence, not proof.

 

[renau1g]

Oh, and I have never condoned the ethics of downloading those torrents, merely stating that it isn't accurate to measure the number of DL's on torrent sites as the number of subs that DDI has lost. I just wanted to make that clear as I hate Pirate Jerks A-Z

 

[Scribble]

As others have tried to make clear, the fact that someone has downloaded something illegally in no way proves that they would have paid for it otherwise. As I said; evidence, not proof.

I THINK what Draco is trying to say is basically it doesn't matter whether they would have bought it or not had they not been able to pirate it.

They have a copy, they did not pay for that copy when they should have, so you lost revenue. IE The copy was made, so you should have gotten money for it, but you didn't.

 

[Ryujin]

I THINK what Draco is trying to say is basically it doesn't matter whether they would have bought it or not had they not been able to pirate it.

They have a copy, they did not pay for that copy when they should have, so you lost revenue. IE The copy was made, so you should have gotten money for it, but you didn't.

II get what he's trying to say but to have "lost " something, you must have had the opportunity to have possessed it. If that revenue was never going to be available, then you have "lost" nothing. Knowing that someone pirated a product proves nothing more than that it was pirated. You can't point to it as guaranteed lost revenue, just as evidence that revenue could have been secured.

Sorry, "angels dancing on the head of a pin" and all of that, but it's a logic issue to me.

 

[Scribble]

II get what he's trying to say but to have "lost " something, you must have had the opportunity to have possessed it. If that revenue was never going to be available, then you have "lost" nothing. Knowing that someone pirated a product proves nothing more than that it was pirated. You can't point to it as guaranteed lost revenue, just as evidence that revenue could have been secured.

Sorry, "angels dancing on the head of a pin" and all of that, but it's a logic issue to me.

I guess what it boils down to is how you view the idea of copying a thing, and copyright, and all...

It doesn't matter if you would have otherwise made the money by selling it to that person. A transaction WAS made, they got the thing, but failed to pay the price you set for it, so you lost money.

 

[DracoSuave]

II get what he's trying to say but to have "lost " something, you must have had the opportunity to have possessed it. If that revenue was never going to be available, then you have "lost" nothing. Knowing that someone pirated a product proves nothing more than that it was pirated. You can't point to it as guaranteed lost revenue, just as evidence that revenue could have been secured.

Sorry, "angels dancing on the head of a pin" and all of that, but it's a logic issue to me.

No, it's more of a 'So long as the equivalent thing is available for free, people will be dissuaded to pay for it' issue. In order to lose revenue, it must only be shown that at some point a decision point between buying the product and not buying the product, while still using the product, has been arrived at.

D&D Insider information readily available? Check.

Internet Connection? Check.

A decision point made between buying and not buying? Check.

Using the product? Check.

Lost revenue.

One cannot speak of whether they 'would have bought it' because that involves what someone would do in a universe that does not exist; one where it is not available for free. As well, declarations of such are often tainted with bias towards the actions one has already taken.

What can be shown is that decision point; that is the only logical construction that actually exists.

 

[Ryujin]

I guess what it boils down to is how you view the idea of copying a thing, and copyright, and all...

It doesn't matter if you would have otherwise made the money by selling it to that person. A transaction WAS made, they got the thing, but failed to pay the price you set for it, so you lost money.

I'm drawing a line of differentiation between the concepts of "theft of IP" and "lost revenue." They aren't congruent.

But enough of that. Sorry for the hijack.

 

[Scribble]

I'm drawing a line of differentiation between the concepts of "theft of IP" and "lost revenue." They aren't congruent.

But enough of that. Sorry for the hijack.

And that's where I think it just depends on your perspective- If you draw that line or not. Some don't, others do.

I think the law doesn't, but I'm not entirely sure. (I'm not an IP lawyer... my sister in law is, so maybe I'll ask her sometime.)

 

[renau1g]

The law falls that you stole IP, which violates copyright law. Well...you didn't steal per se, just violated their copyright (or something along those lines, ask DannyAlcatraz for more specifics)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

II get what he's trying to say but to have "lost " something, you must have had the opportunity to have possessed it. If that revenue was never going to be available, then you have "lost" nothing. Knowing that someone pirated a product proves nothing more than that it was pirated. You can't point to it as guaranteed lost revenue, just as evidence that revenue could have been secured.

Sorry, "angels dancing on the head of a pin" and all of that, but it's a logic issue to me.

Heh, yeah. It is really irrelevant to an economic calculation if people who will NEVER be customers download a copy of your stuff. In fact it can't really be seen as anything but positive from a business perspective, at least you got eyeballs on your product, which is a pretty significant goal in marketing. Ideally you probably would rather those with no interest at all don't copy your stuff, but you never know, they might show it to someone or their kid might look at it, etc. At that point it is pretty much just a marketing material floating around on the net.

And frankly anyone that tries to go around saying they have ANY idea what the cost of piracy really is has zero credibility with anyone that knows a bit about the subject. The "we lost $82 billion because so many people copied our stuff" nonsense is what makes the RIAA a laughing stock. Obviously they don't believe those numbers either, but pushing that kind of mush headed logic on the rest of the world is a PR stunt at best and loses you all credibility at worst.