|
|
|
|
|
by jraph
1477 days ago
|
|
Devil's advocate, it's not that simple. Producing a DVD is cheap, the seller can produce them for almost nothing per unit (not zero though). It could be that this stolen DVD allows N people to discover its content and buy the DVD. The seller wins from this stealing even for a small N. N could be bigger than when downloading the movie instead, because the DVD can be seen in a shelf for example. Is it fundamentally different? (it's a genuine question, I have not studied anything on the matter). The only difference I see is that almost nothing = zero when downloading the DVD's content instead of stealing the physical object. edit: I actually see a difference, there's no guarantee that a stolen DVD does produce any sale, and so there is a loss even if it is small, but I think the question is still not simple to answer. |
|
That's true, although I was thinking more about retailers who presumably pay much more than the marginal cost (though still much less than the retail price). It's also probably true that copyright laws are responsible for the vast majority of the commercial value of physical copies of digital media. Perhaps an easier way to see the fundamental difference is that when you're downloading a copy of a movie from BitTorrent, all the parties actively involved are willing participants.
> It could be that this stolen DVD allows N people to discover its content and buy the DVD.
This is also a real possibility, and is a strong argument for copyright holders to rethink their business models (and, in my view, for societies to rethink copyright laws). But I don't think it's a strong argument for treating the theft of a physical DVD and someone torrenting a movie as being remotely comparable.