deleted by creator

this is cool, going to use this for our young one whenever that happens

I’m not arguing that the makers of the game are the victim. I’m arguing that the other consumers are.

You seem unwilling to hold a consistent picture in this dialogue as you keep trying to argue the same thing.

edit: and the answer to how a creator would tell the difference is between the incomes of the two events, one with piracy, another without.

So you agree there is a difference then.

edit: Revisiting this, as I’ve said before:

I’m not arguing that the makers of the game are the victim. I’m arguing that the other consumers are.

You seem unwilling to hold a consistent picture in this dialogue as you keep trying to argue the same thing.

No, there is a difference, and my apologies for not responding to your statement about the mechanism.

The mechanism of harm caused by the first group (those that would have bought the game if the avenue of piracy did not exist), is that by choosing to pirate instead, they are removing their contribution to the profitability of the company and causing an increase in price to remain profitable. These increased prices cause undue burden only on those people purchasing the product.

There is no mechanism of harm caused by the second group (someone not buying the game because they aren’t interested in the game). In this case there would be no alternative action if the avenue of piracy did not exist because this group would still not purchase the game.

The harm is only caused by those that would have bought the game if the avenue of piracy did not exist.

No, I read it.

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.

I would disagree.

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.

just saying that people not paying for things increases the overall cost of those things. the collective of normies pays your fair share.

embrace it my dude, it is what it is.

“have you tried turning it off and back on again?”

i.e. i’ve seen it correct itself by unsubscribing and subscribing again

especially at the cost of others

gotcha ok i think i’m getting it. just to make sure i’m not missing anything, you’re saying that in this case it didn’t matter as in the end they could use any TLD and achieve the same effect.

but in general, threat actors hope to confuse people into thinking this “.zip” TLDs are only referencing local files instead of web addresses. right?

i think i understand that part but why is this specific event “another reason to block this TLD”? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there another inherit security issue with .zip that doesn’t exist with other domains?

i concur. i too wanna know.

sorry i’m missing it. why this specific TLD? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there something special with .mov?

sorry i’m missing it. why this specific TLD? can’t they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? why is this a reason to block it?

holy cow! it’s happening!!!

hey can you propose some alternatives i might look into?