Piracy is not theft, Lost sales don't exist, says Minecraft creator (2011)

Re:Piracy is not theft, Lost sales don't exist, says Minecra... by TheOtherHobbes on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @04:32PM (#26334901)

Conversely I know a number of music software (VST) developers who simply gave up because piracy nuked their income.

There are specific niches and specific relationship models where piracy won't do this. But there are far more where it will.

Ultimately it comes down to the ridiculous notion that because cost-of-copying is effectively zero then so is product value.

This handily ignores the hours/days/weeks/years of development effort that can go into a product, and the use value - which may translate into income - that it offers users.

As a creator you certainly have the option to decide on the relationship model you want with your customers. Piracy removes that right.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Piracy is not theft, Lost sales don't exist, says Minecra... by nsilvestri on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @04:49PM (#26335133)

VST developers also exist in a space where their $100+ USD products are one of dozens that a person wants use, in a relatively small market, where many people are hobbyists who don't make money off their music. DAW entry costs are already high, with two of the most popular being Ableton Live Standard at $450 and FL Studio Producer at $199. They don't expect amateur Joe to license thousands of dollars worth of software just so he can post to his 15 followers on Soundcloud.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Piracy is not theft, Lost sales don't exist, says Minecra... by yaml-ops-guy on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @04:51PM (#26335168)

I think you're understating the size of the studio production world who are as much extensive consumers of comparatively inexpensive VST plugins as they are consumers of multi-hundred dollar workstations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Piracy is not theft, Lost sales don't exist, says Minecra... by account42 on Friday March 05, 2021 @04:44AM (#26354920)

> Piracy removes that right.

But that right is entirely artificial in the first place. It was given in order to encourage more creation. Saying that some creations would have been encouraged had that right been enforced (not even that is a given - a pirated copy does not equate a lost sale 1:1) is not enough to justify copyright without weighing that against all the negative effects of copyright - overhead to licensing, enforcement costs paid by society, people prevented from creating derivativees, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]