Yes, you almost got it. Well done. I’ll leave you with that.

No, the point is that just because you pirated it, it doesn’t mean you would have paid for the content if there were no way to pirate it.

You basically wrote what I did, but from a different viewpoint.

Your example with the cinema is also a typical apple and oranges example comparing a digital distribution with a physical service. Yes, when you sneak into a cinema the cinema provider is losing revenue because you take a seat someone else might have paid for. So at some point the cinema is full and cannot accommodate any more people that paid which would prompt the provider to check tickets.

There is no such scenario for digital distribution. You are not taking anyone’s space. The provider can sell their product infinitely often. You even already pay for the traffic you cause with your internet connection. It is a very different situation but is always equated because online piracy is of course the worst problem ever.

“The pay-TV provider suffered damage in the millions as a result,” the ZCB announced without providing further details. The content providers speak of high revenue losses due to piracy on an “industrial scale”.

Natürlich. Jeder hätte auf jeden Fall das legale Angebot abonniert, gäbe es da nicht diesen illegalen Service. Klar, macht Sinn. Gibt auf keinen Fall die Möglichkeit, dass die Leute dann einfach nichts abonnieren, natürlich nicht, nein.

Edit: sorry, didn’t realise this might be an English community. Just wrote sarcastically that obviously everyone who subscribed to the illegal service will now certainly go for the legal alternative. Which is why it totally makes sense to mark these as lost revenue. Absolutely not possible that people might just no subscribe to the legal service, nope.

Valid question. But this article is a physical book in your own hands. I am not saying this is safe or anything but has nothing to do with Amazon besides that they sell it.