> I pirate because I would never be afford all the things I want or use.

That may apply for you, but seems empirically false. Take, for instance, 2D Boy's recent "Pay Want You Want". The plurality[0] chose to give $0.01 (the lowest possible amount). I really have a hard time believing that $0.01 was anywhere near the maximum of what the average customer could afford, or valued the game at.

As long as it's without consequence and easy enough, people will take what they can. Leave a six-pack of beer in a communal college dorm and see how long it lasts, if you don't believe me.

[0]: http://2dboy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/histogram.p...

To put the data another way, the majority chose a higher value. It's not clear that the equilibrium price and the mode are the same.

True, but 2D Boy should also be the exception when it comes to these "charitable" payments. They're a small indie game shop that produces top value content. How many of those >$1 payments would've disappeared if this was EA?

I agree: 2D Boy does not serve as a good example or counterexample of the OP.

Why do you feel you deserve all the things you want that you can't afford?

Presumably because it's societally optimal for everyone to be able to consume as much media as they like (since it has a marginal cost of zero). He gains, no one else loses.

Of course, there's a massive externality to deal with: how do the people who create media get money for it? But in an optimal system (which we might not be able to create) everyone would still be able to consume as much as they want.

> Of course, there's a massive externality to deal with: how do the people who create media get money for it? But in an optimal system (which we might not be able to create) everyone would still be able to consume as much as they want.

How is it "optimal" if it doesn't address the obvious cost?

We don't consider compensating producers as an externality where physical goods are concerned, so why is it an externality for intangible goods?

> We don't consider compensating producers as an externality where physical goods are concerned, so why is it an externality for intangible goods?

That's a good question. One important difference is that, at the point of which duplication is possible, the intangible good already exists. Compensating the creator for creating the good may or may not encourage future creations. It's a sunk cost. It's also the only cost.

> One important difference is that, at the point of which duplication is possible, the intangible good already exists.

Not so fast. Yes, duplicating intangible goods is relatively inexpensive, but at point of purchase and use, tangible goods also exist, the costs are sunk, etc, so they're exactly the same.

In both cases, payment compensates producers for effort and resources that have already been expended.

Each incremental physical good deprives someone else of a copy of that good which could otherwise be gained. This is not true for digital goods, which have zero marginal cost. No tangible good has a zero marginal cost.

> Each incremental physical good deprives someone else of a copy of that good which could otherwise be gained. This is not true for digital goods, which have zero marginal cost. No tangible good has a zero marginal cost.

While true, that's irrelevant to an argument that claimed that sunk costs were an externality that wasn't all that important.

I think the reason people feel this way is because of the competitive capitalistic nature of the society we live in.

If I know X% of the population has acquired something for free, how am I supposed to feel when I'm expected to pay for it. Our society places a lot of emphasis on being the best and always being competitive with one another. How am I supposed to be the best or be competitive with others, when the playing field isn't level. The only way in this case to level the playing field is to also engage in piracy.

It sounds like you just said that piracy is a market correction too, just from a different angle.