and why the claims of lost revenue are accurate, even when people claim they wouldn't have bought the item anyway.
Hmm, speaking of semantics again, I'd be more inclined to agree they're valid rather than accurate. I feel like accurate would also assume that the revenue would have actually been gained had the piracy not occurred, while valid simply agrees that theft occurred. This might be in the realm of nitpicking though, so maybe it's irrelevant. In the end, I agree with you on the point that software piracy does indeed constitute theft (at least under the current legal framework of the US, possibly in other countries as well).
I admit, it takes some getting used to, but once you understand the underlying concept, the semantics become clear. As a simple example:
You sell a video game for $20 a copy. That means that, for every copy, you are entitled to $20 in revenue. If someone downloads a copy illegally, that's $20 in lost revenue- it's money you are entitled to receive, but since they obtained an illegal copy, you don't get. Whether they would've ever bought a copy legally is irrelevant, they obtained a copy, and that means you should've received $20 in revenue. Since they didn't pay, that's lost revenue.
Yeah, ok, I'm seeing it. I still might not agree with it on principle, however I agree that it's valid reasoning and I'm happy we got these semantics figured out. It had previously been quite confusing to me how that argumentation had been arrived at, so seeing how it works & is valid is always nice!
Hmm, speaking of semantics again, I'd be more inclined to agree they're valid rather than accurate. I feel like accurate would also assume that the revenue would have actually been gained had the piracy not occurred, while valid simply agrees that theft occurred. This might be in the realm of nitpicking though, so maybe it's irrelevant. In the end, I agree with you on the point that software piracy does indeed constitute theft (at least under the current legal framework of the US, possibly in other countries as well).
I admit, it takes some getting used to, but once you understand the underlying concept, the semantics become clear. As a simple example:
You sell a video game for $20 a copy. That means that, for every copy, you are entitled to $20 in revenue. If someone downloads a copy illegally, that's $20 in lost revenue- it's money you are entitled to receive, but since they obtained an illegal copy, you don't get. Whether they would've ever bought a copy legally is irrelevant, they obtained a copy, and that means you should've received $20 in revenue. Since they didn't pay, that's lost revenue.
Yeah, ok, I'm seeing it. I still might not agree with it on principle, however I agree that it's valid reasoning and I'm happy we got these semantics figured out. It had previously been quite confusing to me how that argumentation had been arrived at, so seeing how it works & is valid is always nice!