6 ms·

I see this argument a lot, "Oh well, it's cheap, so people should just pay for it!" and it seems to gloss over one important fact. Money is not an unlimited re

I see this argument a lot, "Oh well, it's cheap, so people should just pay for it!" and it seems to gloss over one important fact. Money is not an unlimited resource. If there are say.. $4,000 (purchase price) of fun and awesome things released in a year, and the average person after things like bills, rent/mortgage, etcetera only has say.. $500 left to actually spend on frivolity, then they might decide the following: "Well, I guess I will download the rest. It's not like they are losing a sale. I don't HAVE any money, anyway!". And, if this is the case, it's true. No-one actually LOSES anything. You can't lose a sale you could never have made anyway. So such numbers can be shockingly misleading.

gcheong 18y ago
But is it OK for someone to benefit from something they aren't willing to pay for? What is the difference between someone who decides to go without because they don't or can't pay and someone who says I can't/won't pay so I'll just copy it from someone else? Is it morals or economics?
- ajkirwin 18y ago
  You cannot really use morals in an example where you aren't depriving anyone of anything.
  - gcheong 18y ago
    The people who choose not to copy the game without paying are depriving themselves of the benefit of the game even though they don't have to vs. the people who decide its ok to play the game even though they can't or won't pay. So what is the difference between the two people? The economics is factored out (neither person pays) so the difference would seem to be one of personal morals.
    - ajkirwin 18y ago
      I thought you were talking about depriving OTHERS. Which is what matters, is it not?
      - tptacek 18y ago
        Thank you for depriving me of a great deal of software that would otherwise not demand per-seat registration and kernel module license monitors. Thank you for depriving me of a great deal of software that would not cost $600 retail if it wasn't so hard to keep users from circulating it.
        ajkirwin 18y ago
        Depriving how, exactly? I'm talking about non-sales. I am talking about people who literally DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE MONEY. If they download something, how can you count that as a 'lost sale' or a 'loss to piracy'? You just can't. That's making something from nothing.
        tptacek 18y ago
        Most of the people who pirate Illustrator do not "literally have no money". They simply choose not to spend it on Illustrator. So they take it, and let people like me pay extra to make up for it.
        ajkirwin 18y ago
        Or maybe these people don't have the $600 for it either.
        tptacek 18y ago
        And maybe the small fraction of people who literally don't have $600 should spend $30 on Lineform, or help out with Inkscape, instead of just taking the $600 piece of software and pretending that the rest of the market doesn't exist.
        18y ago
- jamesbritt 18y ago
  "But is it OK for someone to benefit from something they aren't willing to pay for? " It happens all the time. For example, I benefited from your comment, but I wouldn't have paid to read it.
  - gcheong 18y ago
    The currency on HN is karma points. I can only hope you will do the right thing ;^).
Scriptor 18y ago
I would agree with your opinion if a vast majority of people who have computers and Internet connections could not afford another $20. But what if there was no pirated version of this game available? I think you'd find that, if it's not too inconvenient, more people would actually buy the game. For example, console games don't suffer as much from pirating, but what if hypothetically it was as easy to pirate a game for your Wii or 360 as it was for your PC? I very much doubt that people would continue to buy the games. So basically, the very presence of pirated games available for free is taking sales away from the game makers, people are simply choosing the free option.
- ajkirwin 18y ago
  You seem to be overlooking the scarceness issue. It's not about Just Another $20. It's about Just Another $20, And Another. And Another. You are saying that it would be wrong for me to download something, even if the very act of doing so does not make anyone lose any money, take the food from anyone's mouth (etc etc)?
  - tjr 18y ago
    I think that misses the point. Suppose someone is selling clay pottery. They bought a machine to help them make it, but the clay itself is freely available. They just go down to the riverbed and grab a heap of clay. You could go get the very same clay. It's free; it's a public resource. We'll even say there is infinite clay. Now then. The producer is using a totally free resource to produce clay pots. It takes a few hours to make each one, and they are very nice. But the only material in the product is a free resource. If you were to steal the pots without paying for them, the producer isn't out anything, because the producer can just go get more clay; no big deal. You've taken no money, you've taken no food. All you've taken is a clay pot, made out of a substance of which the producer has an infinite supply. Is it okay to steal the pot?
    - ajkirwin 18y ago
      No. Because the producer isn't, once he's made his Clay Pot 1.0, simply using a replicator to run off infinite copies of it. But if he WAS, then yeah, it'd be fine, providing you had no way to getting the pots yourself.
jbjohns 18y ago
What you say is true, but what percentage of people are not paying because they can't afford it vs. the one's who just don't want to pay for it? While it is true that someone downloading a game that they couldn't have paid for doesn't deprive the maker of money, it's quite a slippery slope.
- tptacek 18y ago
  It's not even true if you can't afford it. You have $500 to spend on "frivolity" this year. You choose not to spend $20 of it on World of Goo. Now you're not going to spend the money next year, either: you already took it. You might as well not spend the $500. Give it to charity, and just take everything you want. See, now you're Robin Hood!
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
they might have bought it next year.
greendestiny 18y ago
You don't know how many people would prioritize this game over other spending if they couldn't get it for free. Only things that you can pirate can you choose to get for free so it gets prioritized lower than it deserves.

gcheong 18y ago

But is it OK for someone to benefit from something they aren't willing to pay for? What is the difference between someone who decides to go without because they don't or can't pay and someone who says I can't/won't pay so I'll just copy it from someone else? Is it morals or economics?

ajkirwin 18y ago
You cannot really use morals in an example where you aren't depriving anyone of anything.
- gcheong 18y ago
  The people who choose not to copy the game without paying are depriving themselves of the benefit of the game even though they don't have to vs. the people who decide its ok to play the game even though they can't or won't pay. So what is the difference between the two people? The economics is factored out (neither person pays) so the difference would seem to be one of personal morals.
  - ajkirwin 18y ago
    I thought you were talking about depriving OTHERS. Which is what matters, is it not?
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Thank you for depriving me of a great deal of software that would otherwise not demand per-seat registration and kernel module license monitors. Thank you for depriving me of a great deal of software that would not cost $600 retail if it wasn't so hard to keep users from circulating it.
      - ajkirwin 18y ago
        Depriving how, exactly? I'm talking about non-sales. I am talking about people who literally DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE MONEY. If they download something, how can you count that as a 'lost sale' or a 'loss to piracy'? You just can't. That's making something from nothing.
        tptacek 18y ago
        Most of the people who pirate Illustrator do not "literally have no money". They simply choose not to spend it on Illustrator. So they take it, and let people like me pay extra to make up for it.
        ajkirwin 18y ago
        Or maybe these people don't have the $600 for it either.
        tptacek 18y ago
        And maybe the small fraction of people who literally don't have $600 should spend $30 on Lineform, or help out with Inkscape, instead of just taking the $600 piece of software and pretending that the rest of the market doesn't exist.
        18y ago
jamesbritt 18y ago
"But is it OK for someone to benefit from something they aren't willing to pay for? " It happens all the time. For example, I benefited from your comment, but I wouldn't have paid to read it.
- gcheong 18y ago
  The currency on HN is karma points. I can only hope you will do the right thing ;^).

Scriptor 18y ago

I would agree with your opinion if a vast majority of people who have computers and Internet connections could not afford another $20. But what if there was no pirated version of this game available? I think you'd find that, if it's not too inconvenient, more people would actually buy the game. For example, console games don't suffer as much from pirating, but what if hypothetically it was as easy to pirate a game for your Wii or 360 as it was for your PC? I very much doubt that people would continue to buy the games. So basically, the very presence of pirated games available for free is taking sales away from the game makers, people are simply choosing the free option.

ajkirwin 18y ago
You seem to be overlooking the scarceness issue. It's not about Just Another $20. It's about Just Another $20, And Another. And Another. You are saying that it would be wrong for me to download something, even if the very act of doing so does not make anyone lose any money, take the food from anyone's mouth (etc etc)?
- tjr 18y ago
  I think that misses the point. Suppose someone is selling clay pottery. They bought a machine to help them make it, but the clay itself is freely available. They just go down to the riverbed and grab a heap of clay. You could go get the very same clay. It's free; it's a public resource. We'll even say there is infinite clay. Now then. The producer is using a totally free resource to produce clay pots. It takes a few hours to make each one, and they are very nice. But the only material in the product is a free resource. If you were to steal the pots without paying for them, the producer isn't out anything, because the producer can just go get more clay; no big deal. You've taken no money, you've taken no food. All you've taken is a clay pot, made out of a substance of which the producer has an infinite supply. Is it okay to steal the pot?
  - ajkirwin 18y ago
    No. Because the producer isn't, once he's made his Clay Pot 1.0, simply using a replicator to run off infinite copies of it. But if he WAS, then yeah, it'd be fine, providing you had no way to getting the pots yourself.

jbjohns 18y ago

What you say is true, but what percentage of people are not paying because they can't afford it vs. the one's who just don't want to pay for it? While it is true that someone downloading a game that they couldn't have paid for doesn't deprive the maker of money, it's quite a slippery slope.

tptacek 18y ago
It's not even true if you can't afford it. You have $500 to spend on "frivolity" this year. You choose not to spend $20 of it on World of Goo. Now you're not going to spend the money next year, either: you already took it. You might as well not spend the $500. Give it to charity, and just take everything you want. See, now you're Robin Hood!

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

they might have bought it next year.

greendestiny 18y ago

You don't know how many people would prioritize this game over other spending if they couldn't get it for free. Only things that you can pirate can you choose to get for free so it gets prioritized lower than it deserves.