Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-piracy by any means, and I'm as bothered by the changing of services as the next person. I just found it amusing that people seemed to disagree that pirating would have an impact on the bottom line of the execs, so that life was imitating art.
Because you're pretending like pirating is any different to the bottom line than not buying the product.
There is no difference. They're going to make a marvel movie next year. If I don't go see it did the company lose any money?
No.
Same if I pirate it. Whether or not you actually watch the movie is irrelevant.
The point the other person is trying to make is that if a person wants to watch something, but the price is higher than they value or can afford for the experience they will not pay the price, so the company will not profit. If the person then pirates the content to view it, the company has lost nothing additional.
However, one could also make the argument that the viewer having the ability to pirate lowers what they are willing to pay, thus the company does lose some amount of profit in aggregate over time. This though is not necessarily true for those who lack the means to pay, rather than just the willingness.
Ultimately for people who do have the means, piracy is a symptom more of a service issue rather than a price issue. People generally will follow the path of least resistance to acquire what they desire. For most people a small payment and easy access will lead them not to pirate, but as prices rise, content fractures and UIs enshitify, the aggregate effort crosses the line and they start to withdraw and turn to other methods.
Everyone has their own willingness to pay for things on the demand curve, if companies pick an optimal price, they maximize profits, and aren't harmed by people who cannot or will not pay that price utilizing a non-consumable resource without payment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-piracy by any means, and I'm as bothered by the changing of services as the next person. I just found it amusing that people seemed to disagree that pirating would have an impact on the bottom line of the execs, so that life was imitating art.
Because you're pretending like pirating is any different to the bottom line than not buying the product.
There is no difference. They're going to make a marvel movie next year. If I don't go see it did the company lose any money?
No.
Same if I pirate it. Whether or not you actually watch the movie is irrelevant.
If you want to see a TV show, but pirate it instead, did the company lose any money*? Yes.
This thread is hilarious.
No, dude whether or not I watch a movie has NOTHING to do with the movie company's income.
Stay in high school then once you get past learning basic economics, have another go at thinking.
The point the other person is trying to make is that if a person wants to watch something, but the price is higher than they value or can afford for the experience they will not pay the price, so the company will not profit. If the person then pirates the content to view it, the company has lost nothing additional.
However, one could also make the argument that the viewer having the ability to pirate lowers what they are willing to pay, thus the company does lose some amount of profit in aggregate over time. This though is not necessarily true for those who lack the means to pay, rather than just the willingness.
Ultimately for people who do have the means, piracy is a symptom more of a service issue rather than a price issue. People generally will follow the path of least resistance to acquire what they desire. For most people a small payment and easy access will lead them not to pirate, but as prices rise, content fractures and UIs enshitify, the aggregate effort crosses the line and they start to withdraw and turn to other methods.
Everyone has their own willingness to pay for things on the demand curve, if companies pick an optimal price, they maximize profits, and aren't harmed by people who cannot or will not pay that price utilizing a non-consumable resource without payment.