Then I guess it ain't just plain false, right?
It is, as there exists in my sample (me) instances where it is false. There are multiple instances in that sample when piracy does indeed deprive the producers of software and media of money.
If for every example that cost them money (and I mean conclusively, "would have purchased it had I not pirated it" style) there is another example that helped them made money, then in fact it is not false that PIRACY (not "a single instance of piracy", otherwise if I find a single instance where it made them more money, I could equally claim that every single act of piracy makes them more money) didn't harm the company. Instead, PIRACY (as a whole, on average, or whatchamacallit) would have helped the company.
Hello to the wonderful world of fallacies.
Today we're presenting you with fallacy number 27:
The exception doesn't make the rule.
And the wonderful fallacy number 12:
What a crazy generalization based on one subject, batman.
Furthermore, I hereby call you an ass. If you don't agree with us and consider piracy bad, just say so. You don't have to shove fallacy up our butts to try to prove your point. You should know the b12 crew better by now. Shame on you, shame on you!
I'm not saying that every instance of piracy deprives companies of money, I am saying that some do.
I admit that my sample is not the largest or most representative of samples.
Well, a second sample would show that 100% of instances of piracy doubles their money. All I need to do is show one guy that pirated something, and then he bought two or more of the same item (one as a gift, maybe). With a sample size of one, then piracy is good for everyone! Plain and simple!
Now, let's try with a bigger sample:
Let's say 100 people pirate a program. Of these 100 people, 80 wouldn't have bought it at all (some of them may have *wanted* to, but they didn't for X reason, like, they already spent their allowance on program Y instead. others just don't care, but are curious about what it is). 20 decided that, since it's free (TM) they really needed it, would have shelled out hard cash for it, but didn't and used a pirated copy instead.
That's, at most, generously, 20 "lost sales" from this transaction. But it's not "plain" at all. What if, from the 80 people who pirated it, some decide they're going to enroll in a course that you are dictating that's worth more money? What if some of these show it to their friends, resulting in 21 extra sales? What if you sell mugs for fans of the program, and 75 people buy overpriced mugs from you because they pirated the program (including the ones that would have paid, but didn't)?
You maybe can't show causation, only correlation of piracy vs sales. But if the correlation shows a net gain, how can you say that piracy COSTS sales? I mean, sure, it doesn't *prove* that each pirate bought more, or even that piracy was the reason of the extra sales/income, but going from that to the Exact Opposite, now that needs some very convoluted reasoning...
And then, there are the studies that have been shown. They're scientific, to some extent. They don't CLAIM that piracy is the CAUSE of the increase, but it shows the increase, for those foaming at the mount shouting "our money is decreasing because of piracy!", well it isn't, because of piracy or rainbows or anything else, because it's not decreasing at all, it's increasing!
Author
Topic: "You Can't Torrent Your Game Copy, That's Illegal" (Read 22334 times)