[dandrick]

This a very shortsighted view - of course creators lose money due to pirating.

I'm not even speaking about the concept of sells they may have had in place of theft - that is simple conjecture. There is no doubt that less money flowing in to the industry, as a direct result of piracy, means less money for creators. Is anyone honestly suggesting media sales haven't declined due to pirating?

I'm not a proponent of the industry as it currently functions, but I dislike the offhand spread of disinformation - less money spent on purchases will indirectly, and sometimes directly, result in less money for creators.

[mikeash]

Creators fail to gain money. It's not the same as losing money.

By all means, let's talk about the effects of piracy on creators' profits. But let's not pretend that a pirated copy costs the creator anything.

The action and consequences of stealing versus pirating are different. They deserve to be discussed differently. Linking them together is clumsy and doesn't further the discourse.

[dandrick]

That sort of argument just comes off as a word game to me, I don't really know what to say to it. It is similar to saying no one dies when they jump out of a window, it is the impact that kills them.

[mikeash]

Well, let's look at the various outcomes. There are, I think, three possible actions to consider: A) taking and paying B) taking and not paying C) not taking.

For a restaurant, we get: A) restaurant benefits B) restaurant loses C) restaurant suffers no effect either way.

For piracy, we get: A) creator benefits B) creator suffers no effect either way C) creator suffers no effect either way.

Consider what happens if I organize a thousand people to carry out (B) on something. If it's a restaurant, this could easily drive them out of business. If it's a creator of copyrighted content, they continue with their business as usual.

Note: I'm not saying that (B) is good, or acceptable, or justified, or should be legal, or anything like that, when it comes to copyright infringement. I'm just saying that the two scenarios entail significantly different consequences, and should not be treated as the same thing. Treating them as the same doesn't help the discussion at all: it simply causes people who agree with you to nod their heads, and people who disagree to think you're being disingenuous.

[biot]

There's a common flaw in this line of argument. In your (B) example, you need to do one more level of analysis:

   i) Would have paid if it were the only option, but would rather get 
      something for nothing
  ii) Would not have paid under any circumstances

Assign probabilities to each of those events and now you know the probability of harm to the creator. Option (i) could be low, but it is not a 0% probability which means that for a sufficiently large sample size the (B) scenario does cause the creator to suffer.

[bmelton]

If piracy takes root as something that people 'should' do, then B) in your piracy example leads to the same outcome as B) in your restaurant example.

It deprives them of any income, and removes the incentive and ability for them to produce further content as a means of living in the future.

That deprives all of their future contributions and damages the commons. In summation, at scale, the outcome for both B) scenarios IS the same, and if it is at scale, then there must be an effect not at scale, whether or not you refuse to accept it.

[mikeash]

(B) at scale only leads to the same outcome if a substantial number are converted from (A). If people are only converted from (C) then the outcomes are completely different.

In short, the effect of piracy depends entirely on whether the pirates are potential customers. The effect of dine-and-dash does not depend on that. This is, I believe, an extremely significant difference.