[doctor_eval]

I agree with your interpretation of copyright and that it is not theft, but your position ignores the fact that very many “properties” would not exist except for the understanding that they might be profitable. In some cases, like GoT, the likelihood of profitability is very high.

In that sense, copyright infringement _indirectly_ deprives the holder of the property through the capital that they invested in order to create the property in the first place.

I mean, if I spend $100 to make a movie with the hope that 100 people will each spend $2 to watch it, and then you make a copy and distribute it for free to my audience, then you’ve deprived me of my $100 in capital, and the $100 in profit. The profit itself is a loss because it is an opportunity cost: if I hadn’t made the movie then I might have spent my time making money some other way.

The distance between your position and mine is, I think, one of scale. Individual infringement of a property with millions of views is a tiny fraction of the cost of creating that property. But as the number of infringers increases relative to the audience, it really does deprive people of property.

[z3phyr]

What if someone pirates it after 100 people already watched/bought it, and now you got 500 more loyal fans who might also buy your next movie?

[doctor_eval]

The actual likelihood of this happening in the real world approaches zero, given the intrinsic incentives of pirates ie to release as early as possible, and the fact that pirates don’t usually know (or care) if the product has recouped its investment, or not.

Even if it was possible, surely the people who have invested real money should be the ones to make this decision? Indeed, lots of IP becomes free (even freedom-free) after it’s made money, eg the Quake engine.

[account42]

> Even if it was possible, surely the people who have invested real money should be the ones to make this decision?

Why? They have no inherent right to limit the distribution of their content, only the special rights society has decided to give them in order to encourage the creation in the first place.

[doctor_eval]

But all rights are granted by society, including your right to own a house or a car or a laptop or the clothes on your back. ALL of these rights are “special rights society has decided to give”.

And in the case of copyright society has decided that media is something that is worth investing in and we have created laws that encourage that.

Some of those laws suck and are stupid and overreaching, but that’s not the argument here.