I have over 1000 sheep. Not one of which I would have paid for if it was the only option. Most of them were scrawny and had gnarly wool so we just ate them. We wouldn't have bought them anyway.
"I have over 1000 sheep. Not one of which I would have paid for if it was the only option. Most of them were scrawny and had gnarly wool so we just ate them. We wouldn't have bought them anyway."
?
Very cute. I think the point they're trying to make is that the companies survey the number of unlicensed works out there, and multiply that by the license cost to come up with the number for losses. That formula works okay in real goods, because a person can show an actual monetary loss for every item stolen.
It's different with copyrighted works, where if I take it you haven't lost your copy, only the profit you could have made had I bought a license. That assumes I would have bought it had I not downloaded it, which in probably the majority of cases is not true. So statistics like this are grossly inflated.
However, what's true for copyrighted works is that the owner can seek statutory damages from an infringer, an option not available for real property. Those damages far outweigh the cost of all songs and most software: a minimum of $200 per infringement in the worst case for the registered copyright holder, up to $150,000.