Ms Croxson points out that piracy poses a threat to sales only when those who otherwise would buy become tempted instead to copy. In any market there are some who value the product but never would buy. Their piracy cannot harm the seller.
Absolute drivel. The seller is always harmed when someone steals their goods. If I want a Ferarri but can't afford one, I don't get to steal it and claim the seller wasn't harmed because I would never have actually bought one. Trying to argue that it's a digital asset and not a physical asset is just an attempt to justify the theft.
But for the sake of argument, let's engage in her little economic model. When someone pirates, their entire incentive to purhase the software is gone. Maybe they would have saved up for that expensive copy of Photoshop if buying it was their only option. But if they easily pirate it instead, that potential sale is lost, and the company is definitely harmed. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Now let's take it a step farther, a true economic picture: The previous scenario is probably not all that common, but it is
common that people who want
Photoshop might very well settle for Photoshop Elements, or one of the other sub-$100 consumer alternatives. But if they can get full
Photoshop easily on the torrent sites, why bother with the inexpensive, but definitely affordable, consumer versions? Now companies, the market as a whole, most definitely is being harmed...sales are being lost by someone
, if not necessarily the actual product being pirated.
So in this short, this lady is frickin retarded and should be chastised by her university for making such publicly embarassing comments. Shame.