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.
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.
I’m asking you how the creator of the piece of media can tell the difference, because they can’t.
If I make a chair, and someone steals it, I’m down a chair. If I make a chair and someone doesn’t buy it, I still have the chair. There’s a difference to the creator here that isn’t there with digital media. That’s why piracy and theft are not the same thing.
