4 ms·

Isn't it also just generally impossible to say if a sale was lost because of piracy? A pirated copy may never have actually been a sale and how would anyone kno

Isn't it also just generally impossible to say if a sale was lost because of piracy? A pirated copy may never have actually been a sale and how would anyone know?

jonny_eh 4y ago
You could say the same of a stolen DVD. Would the thief have otherwise paid for the DVD? At least in the case of a physical good, you could argue that the item being stolen "may" have prevented someone else from buying it, but even then there's no guarantee.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  That's a totally different, much simpler question. A stolen DVD is very clearly a reduction in the number of DVDs the seller can possibly sell.
  - fcsp 4y ago
    Not if it's stolen from a person who bought it, instead of a warehouse
  - jraph 4y 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.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      > Producing a DVD is cheap, the seller can produce them for almost nothing per unit (not zero though). 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.
      - gridspy 4y ago
        It is possible that movie (DVD, Blueray) sales are similar to book sales. The stock is only paid for when it is actually sold. That allows shops to hold huge stock on day 1 with less financial risk and also to price-match all other shops regardless on when they received their stocks.
    - WWLink 4y ago
      How about buying a preowned DVD? If we decide that what you're paying for is the entertainment and joy of watching a movie, are we not stealing from the content creators by reselling and purchasing used DVDs? Edit: I'm making it clear I absolutely despise this argument of course :D Being able to buy/sell used physical media is my favorite reason to buy physical and never buy digital.
      - shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
        I'm sure there are many owners out there that hate the fact physical media is resellable. I'm sure this is at least part of the reason everything is becoming more restricted by copy protection, streamed, proprietary downloads, etc. Everything is becoming harder to own and share without "pirating".
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > A stolen DVD is very clearly a reduction in the number of DVDs the seller can possibly sell. But that's not true; you would have to assume that the number of DVDs the vendor orders is independent of the number of DVDs the vendor loses to all forces including both sales and theft. That assumption is obviously false. If you run a store, you're not limited to ordering a single shipment of whatever DVD; if it sells well, you can order additional shipments.
  - ntoskrnl 4y ago
    If I steal 50 Disney DVDs from a store (and they aren't recovered by the police) the store's insurance will reimburse the store for the loss, and then the store will order more DVDs to refill their stock. Disney actually comes out ahead in that case, believe it or not
- entropicdrifter 4y ago
  And in the case of the stolen DVD, the DVD is physically gone from where it was. In the case of digital copies, nothing is lost besides the potential for one particular sale.
- duped 4y ago
  If the DVD was taking up shelf space and no one was buying it the thief might actually be saving them money
  - jonny_eh 4y ago
    > If the DVD was taking up shelf space I think in 2022, that's true of most DVDs.
- lmm 4y ago
  The damages are at least the wholesale price of the DVD (probably half the consumer price) in that case. With piracy that becomes harder because the marginal cost is zero.
vanderZwan 4y ago
A lot of early studies on piracy suggested that it actually promotes sales more than it removes them. It's just that this is mainly on the side of the less famous musicians, artists, etc, because it gives them more reach (in the case of music people were less likely to try out their stuff if they only had a limited budget to buy records and little opportunity to listen to albums beforehand). It's mainly the biggest mainstream acts that see reduced sales. Personally I don't have much of an issue with that. Of course, this was before streaming was a thing so who knows if the effects of piracy on sales have shifted again as a result of that. And then there is of course the angle that we're artificially limiting supply of digital goods anyway, but that's an entirely different can of worms.
- thrdbndndn 4y ago
  The flip side of this is that sometimes copyright owner may not even care about sales, they simply don't want people to get their work for free. Of course it's almost never the case for large companies which are profit driven, but I once saw an indie Japanese artist said things similar to (when reacting to his work being pirated) that (paraphrasing) "I didn't care if it helps promote my work or the fact I won't lose sales anyway (since I don't sell my work overseas); I just found it's not fair for people who actually paid". I personally is still on the fence, but his comment did make me think.
midasuni 4y ago
In many cases copyright infringement doesn’t result in a lost sale. If the copyright holder refuses to sell the product, then surely the damages are zero. The majority of copyrighted material is not available for purchase

Isn't it also just generally impossible to say if a sale was lost because of piracy? A pirated copy may never have actually been a sale and how would anyone know?

jonny_eh 4y ago

You could say the same of a stolen DVD. Would the thief have otherwise paid for the DVD? At least in the case of a physical good, you could argue that the item being stolen "may" have prevented someone else from buying it, but even then there's no guarantee.

tshaddox 4y ago
That's a totally different, much simpler question. A stolen DVD is very clearly a reduction in the number of DVDs the seller can possibly sell.
- fcsp 4y ago
  Not if it's stolen from a person who bought it, instead of a warehouse
- jraph 4y 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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > Producing a DVD is cheap, the seller can produce them for almost nothing per unit (not zero though). 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.
    - gridspy 4y ago
      It is possible that movie (DVD, Blueray) sales are similar to book sales. The stock is only paid for when it is actually sold. That allows shops to hold huge stock on day 1 with less financial risk and also to price-match all other shops regardless on when they received their stocks.
  - WWLink 4y ago
    How about buying a preowned DVD? If we decide that what you're paying for is the entertainment and joy of watching a movie, are we not stealing from the content creators by reselling and purchasing used DVDs? Edit: I'm making it clear I absolutely despise this argument of course :D Being able to buy/sell used physical media is my favorite reason to buy physical and never buy digital.
    - shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
      I'm sure there are many owners out there that hate the fact physical media is resellable. I'm sure this is at least part of the reason everything is becoming more restricted by copy protection, streamed, proprietary downloads, etc. Everything is becoming harder to own and share without "pirating".
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > A stolen DVD is very clearly a reduction in the number of DVDs the seller can possibly sell. But that's not true; you would have to assume that the number of DVDs the vendor orders is independent of the number of DVDs the vendor loses to all forces including both sales and theft. That assumption is obviously false. If you run a store, you're not limited to ordering a single shipment of whatever DVD; if it sells well, you can order additional shipments.
- ntoskrnl 4y ago
  If I steal 50 Disney DVDs from a store (and they aren't recovered by the police) the store's insurance will reimburse the store for the loss, and then the store will order more DVDs to refill their stock. Disney actually comes out ahead in that case, believe it or not
entropicdrifter 4y ago
And in the case of the stolen DVD, the DVD is physically gone from where it was. In the case of digital copies, nothing is lost besides the potential for one particular sale.
duped 4y ago
If the DVD was taking up shelf space and no one was buying it the thief might actually be saving them money
- jonny_eh 4y ago
  > If the DVD was taking up shelf space I think in 2022, that's true of most DVDs.
lmm 4y ago
The damages are at least the wholesale price of the DVD (probably half the consumer price) in that case. With piracy that becomes harder because the marginal cost is zero.

vanderZwan 4y ago

A lot of early studies on piracy suggested that it actually promotes sales more than it removes them. It's just that this is mainly on the side of the less famous musicians, artists, etc, because it gives them more reach (in the case of music people were less likely to try out their stuff if they only had a limited budget to buy records and little opportunity to listen to albums beforehand). It's mainly the biggest mainstream acts that see reduced sales. Personally I don't have much of an issue with that. Of course, this was before streaming was a thing so who knows if the effects of piracy on sales have shifted again as a result of that. And then there is of course the angle that we're artificially limiting supply of digital goods anyway, but that's an entirely different can of worms.

thrdbndndn 4y ago
The flip side of this is that sometimes copyright owner may not even care about sales, they simply don't want people to get their work for free. Of course it's almost never the case for large companies which are profit driven, but I once saw an indie Japanese artist said things similar to (when reacting to his work being pirated) that (paraphrasing) "I didn't care if it helps promote my work or the fact I won't lose sales anyway (since I don't sell my work overseas); I just found it's not fair for people who actually paid". I personally is still on the fence, but his comment did make me think.

midasuni 4y ago

In many cases copyright infringement doesn’t result in a lost sale. If the copyright holder refuses to sell the product, then surely the damages are zero. The majority of copyrighted material is not available for purchase