4 ms·

You're assuming that Y is evenly distributed amongst all people, which is absolutely not the case. For example, I did most of my game pirating back in high scho

You're assuming that Y is evenly distributed amongst all people, which is absolutely not the case. For example, I did most of my game pirating back in high school, when I didn't have a job (nor a car to get to a job and I lived out in the sticks) and had nothing but an allowance from my parents of ~$20 every month. So the maximum amount I could theoretically spend on games per year? $120. The retail value of all of the different games I pirated annually? Well over $1,000, probably several thousand. So the probability of me paying for any significant portion of the games I pirated was effectively 0

ALittleLight 6y ago
I'm not assuming that at all. My model is extremely simplified so it would fit into a comment, but it doesn't need to be that simple for the general idea to hold. Suppose you pirated a thousand games and would've legitimately purchased one. Your piracy then represents a theft of one game. Since there's no way to tell which one game you would've bought, we could simplify it to say that stole one one thousandth of a game from each publisher (assuming they were all unique publishers). In reality, I think it's really hard to know what you would've done without access to piracy. It's almost certainly not "buy all the games" but it's also probably not "buy zero games". I also pirated a lot of things when I was in college - partly because it was cheaper, and I was very cheap, and partly because it was easier than actually getting some things. One thing I try to do is separate my own personal bias (it can't be bad because I did it) from what seems like the clear harm and moral reasoning I laid out above. You're taking from the publishers, even if only small values, and if everyone did what you did, publishing couldn't exist as a business. I think it makes sense that poor people would steal more frequently. They need to. It also makes sense that younger people would steal more frequently - they are less mature, think less about others, and less about the consequences. Given that, it doesn't surprise me that you and I both pirated more while younger. That said, even though it makes sense, that doesn't mean it's right.
- bawolff 6y ago
  That's a lot of supposing. Suppose instead if piracy wasn't an option the poster just played free games instead, or did something else with their time. > but it's also probably not "buy zero games". In this scenario, the poster may very well not have a credit card (because what's the point if you have no income, also a minor), so it might very we be the case he was physically unable to purchase these games online, especially in the era before online "gift cards" were a thing.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    "the maximum amount I could theoretically spend on games per year? $120" For someone who complains about the quantity of my supposing, it's strange that you are supposing counterfactuals explicitly rejected by the OP.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      Max theoretically i can spend (sum of all my income after basic needs met) != max i will spend on video games. In fact, it would be insane to assume that i would spend 100% of my disposible income on one thing.
Mindwipe 6y ago
> So the probability of me paying for any significant portion of the games I pirated was effectively 0 It was literally 1 in 10. Which is a very long way from 0%.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Poster said in theory if he spent all his money he could pay for 10% of the games he pirated. It does not follow that he neccesarily would if piracy was not an option. If i buy something for $0, and then later the cost goes up,it doesn't follow i would automatically buy it at an increased cost even if i can afford it.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  I had other things to spend money on besides video games

ALittleLight 6y ago

I'm not assuming that at all. My model is extremely simplified so it would fit into a comment, but it doesn't need to be that simple for the general idea to hold. Suppose you pirated a thousand games and would've legitimately purchased one. Your piracy then represents a theft of one game. Since there's no way to tell which one game you would've bought, we could simplify it to say that stole one one thousandth of a game from each publisher (assuming they were all unique publishers). In reality, I think it's really hard to know what you would've done without access to piracy. It's almost certainly not "buy all the games" but it's also probably not "buy zero games". I also pirated a lot of things when I was in college - partly because it was cheaper, and I was very cheap, and partly because it was easier than actually getting some things. One thing I try to do is separate my own personal bias (it can't be bad because I did it) from what seems like the clear harm and moral reasoning I laid out above. You're taking from the publishers, even if only small values, and if everyone did what you did, publishing couldn't exist as a business. I think it makes sense that poor people would steal more frequently. They need to. It also makes sense that younger people would steal more frequently - they are less mature, think less about others, and less about the consequences. Given that, it doesn't surprise me that you and I both pirated more while younger. That said, even though it makes sense, that doesn't mean it's right.

bawolff 6y ago
That's a lot of supposing. Suppose instead if piracy wasn't an option the poster just played free games instead, or did something else with their time. > but it's also probably not "buy zero games". In this scenario, the poster may very well not have a credit card (because what's the point if you have no income, also a minor), so it might very we be the case he was physically unable to purchase these games online, especially in the era before online "gift cards" were a thing.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  "the maximum amount I could theoretically spend on games per year? $120" For someone who complains about the quantity of my supposing, it's strange that you are supposing counterfactuals explicitly rejected by the OP.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Max theoretically i can spend (sum of all my income after basic needs met) != max i will spend on video games. In fact, it would be insane to assume that i would spend 100% of my disposible income on one thing.

Mindwipe 6y ago

> So the probability of me paying for any significant portion of the games I pirated was effectively 0 It was literally 1 in 10. Which is a very long way from 0%.

bawolff 6y ago
Poster said in theory if he spent all his money he could pay for 10% of the games he pirated. It does not follow that he neccesarily would if piracy was not an option. If i buy something for $0, and then later the cost goes up,it doesn't follow i would automatically buy it at an increased cost even if i can afford it.
HideousKojima 6y ago
I had other things to spend money on besides video games