Then why did you state that I assumed something where, I can clearly point out where I did not assume that? I guess maybe I just wasn't being clear, or maybe stating it in a convoluted way?
The makers of a game don’t lose anything.
I'm not arguing that the makers of the game are the victim. I'm arguing that the other consumers are. By some people pirating content that they would otherwise pay for, they are are passing on the cost of that content on to others. Normies are the victims of pirating.
I have this feeling that you don't want to be painted as a bad guy and again, I'm not attacking you personally. I'm again reaffirming that piracy does in fact have victims.
You assume every piece of pirated media would otherwise be bought, this is not true at all.
It seems like you didn’t read all of what I wrote and instead only saw the last section. I did not assume that and reaffirm that piracy does in fact have victims.
While this is not the case for people that would otherwise not buy the product at all, there are still a number of pirates that would pay for something if a pirated version did not exist, and so there is an effect.
If a person purchases entertainment then the overall revenue and profit for that product would be increased. This increase in profitability from last product reduces the pressure to increase prices for future products.
What occurs with piracy is that a person that may have otherwise purchased the product, not do so; lowering the profit of the company and driving increases in price to remain profitable. While this is not the case for people that would otherwise not buy the product at all, there are still a number of pirates that would pay for something if a pirated version did not exist, and so there is an effect.
I'm not attacking you personally, I'm simply stating that piracy is not victimless. I think we should all taking ownership for the harm we cause others even if it is something small.
Our conversation on a different post made me check your post history. And now this post has me considering canceling Amazon Prime. Ripple effects are weird.
This is primarily where the moral argument and thus division appear. Is it fair to ask a person to pay more than their share? I would argue no, it seems a majority here would argue yes. I'm ok with being wrong and learning, but I have a hard time shifting what I believe to be moral foundations.
edit: I appreciate you revisiting your statement and it makes a lot of sense. Something I'll be thinking about a lot more.
The idea behind social security is a forced time phased retirement program. The cap for input of money serves to cap the withdrawal later in years. If the wealthy put in a significantly larger amount while working they will be entitled to a proportionally larger about of withdrawal later. We’re just robbing peter to pay paul here and kicking the issue down the road.
A real solution would be to produce a margin that is invested in a total market fund that would eventually create self sustaining returns to both: pay out current withdrawals as well as grow to match inflation and population growth. But that’s not going to happen.
so after trying to translate, I went down a rabbit hole but here you go; the lady herself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bukNN6cHu9A&t=31s