First thing: it's theirs, they paid for the actors, director, sandwiches for the crew, script, costumes and all. They can charge me and you $1 million a disk or give it for free.
Second thing: I paid once for a season of Sopranos, over $80.
I have no reason to save up to get the other seasons if they're sitting on my hardrive in blue-ray quality. So they still lose something once all is tallied
>First thing: it's theirs, they paid for the actors, director, sandwiches for the crew, script, costumes and all. They can charge me and you $1 million a disk or give it for free.
Totally irrelevant. The question is whether they lose something from piracy, not the larger question of whether piracy is wrong. It's important to stay focused.
>Second thing: I paid once for a season of Sopranos, over $80. I have no reason to save up to get the other seasons if they're sitting on my hardrive in blue-ray quality. So they still lose something once all is tallied
First thing: it's been shown that music pirates spend more on music than non pirates. Clearly, having something for free doesn't prevent people from paying for it. People like having stuff in their collection, they like extra features, and they like supporting the creators of quality stuff if they can afford it. They also like being able to watch something when it comes out rather than waiting for it to come out on a box set.
Second thing: The second season box set of GoT costs $40. Most people are simply never going to pay that price, regardless of whether piracy is an option; in that case, they simply wouldn't ever see it. If those people torrent it, there's no sale opportunity lost.
it's been shown that music pirates spend more on music than non pirates.
On music in general or the already pirated one?
People like having stuff in their collection, they like extra features, and they like supporting the creators of quality stuff if they can afford it.
People, most people or some people are totally different. You speak of generalities, we know know how much "people" care by seeing the donations (or largely lack of them) on open source and other worthwhile projects.
Most people are simply never going to pay that price, regardless of whether piracy is an option; in that case, they simply wouldn't ever see it. If those people torrent it, there's no sale opportunity lost.
And if those that could afford, by not buying McDonalds for a few weeks for example, torrent it, do they lose money? Sure they do. Now they have no incentive to save, mow the lawn, clean snow or whatever...they already pirated it.
"This is really insulting. Do you cling to stereotypes for every group of people not like you?"
They are like me, I go there. I used McDs as an example of something that can be done without for a while. What group goes to McDonalds? I've seen all kinds of people go there.
>And if those that could afford, by not buying McDonalds for a few weeks for example, torrent it, do they lose money? Sure they do. Now they have no incentive to save, mow the lawn, clean snow or whatever...they already pirated it.
Most people are already basically at their limit for what they can earn and save. Maybe if income distribution were different, you'd have a point. But it's not, and you don't.
Second thing: I paid once for a season of Sopranos, over $80. I have no reason to save up to get the other seasons if they're sitting on my hardrive in blue-ray quality. So they still lose something once all is tallied