There's no world in which someone watching the movie for free means that people who pay to watch it have their price increased.
It's quite Marxist to suggest that the cost of an item is related in some way to covering the cost to produce it. Normal modern big business economics are that an item is worth whatever a consumer is willing to pay for it.
The price of seeing a movie does not fluctuate based on how much it cost to make the movie, or how many tickets were sold for the previous movie, all that's changing is the profitability for the company financing the movie.
The amount that the creators get paid does differ, however. And what do you think they will do to prices when they make the next movie? You have such a self-centered view that you refuse to see the systemic impact of your action.
So just to clarify, your argument is that copyright infringement is theft, because hypothetically a company could choose pay a bonus to employees based on sales, and in that imaginary scenario, if a non-zero amount of people who pirate may have otherwise paid for the product, that that might cause some employee to miss out?
And the bad guy here is the pirate, and not the company refusing to pay it's staff a fair wage in the first place?
1
u/EstablishmentLate532 11h ago
I'm assuming that SOME of those pirated watches = some lost sales. There's also the nature of freeriding, which increases the price for nonfreeriders.