4 ms·

> The question of whether downloading actually harms industry or not had not been answered. This is kind of ridiculous. I think we all know that it hurts the

> The question of whether downloading actually harms industry or not had not been answered. This is kind of ridiculous. I think we all know that it hurts the industry. Only in your third scenario does downloading actually help the content producers. And you're leaving off two groups that hurt your case: * people who would watch the show on TV but instead download * people who would buy DVDs but instead download Based on people I know who torrent, the second group is actually fairly large. Your argument is like "people who go into a store and steal a DVD shouldn't get in trouble because they probably wouldn't have bought that DVD anyway." Which is clearly a ridiculous argument.

philbarr 12y ago
> Your argument is like "people who go into a store and steal a DVD shouldn't get in trouble because they probably wouldn't have bought that DVD anyway." It's not quite the same as saying that. It's more like, "people who go into a store and steal a DVD shouldn't get in trouble because they probably wouldn't have bought that DVD anyway and the way they're stealing it means the store has exactly the same number of DVDs as it did before the theft."
- SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
  The cost of producing the DVD is close to nothing. It's not like stealing a physically hard-to-produce object. You're paying for the IP. DVDs don't operate in a scarcity model. Stealing a DVD really is almost equivalent to pirating a movie. The fact that the store is deprived of a physical item is pretty much irrelevant to the argument; they probably would have disposed of many unsold copies of the DVD anyway.
onion2k 12y ago
The "copyright infringement is theft" argument has been thoroughly debunked. It's not even remotely similar. Theft is depriving someone of property. No one is deprived of anything when you copy something, and downloads aren't property.
- SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
  It's absolutely similar. It's getting something without paying for it. The "deprived of property" thing is kind of a red herring anyway, since the cost to make an additional DVD is close to nothing, and stores routinely dispose of unsold merchandise, often ordering more than they think they'll sell so there's no risk of selling out.

philbarr 12y ago

> Your argument is like "people who go into a store and steal a DVD shouldn't get in trouble because they probably wouldn't have bought that DVD anyway." It's not quite the same as saying that. It's more like, "people who go into a store and steal a DVD shouldn't get in trouble because they probably wouldn't have bought that DVD anyway and the way they're stealing it means the store has exactly the same number of DVDs as it did before the theft."

SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
The cost of producing the DVD is close to nothing. It's not like stealing a physically hard-to-produce object. You're paying for the IP. DVDs don't operate in a scarcity model. Stealing a DVD really is almost equivalent to pirating a movie. The fact that the store is deprived of a physical item is pretty much irrelevant to the argument; they probably would have disposed of many unsold copies of the DVD anyway.

onion2k 12y ago

The "copyright infringement is theft" argument has been thoroughly debunked. It's not even remotely similar. Theft is depriving someone of property. No one is deprived of anything when you copy something, and downloads aren't property.

SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
It's absolutely similar. It's getting something without paying for it. The "deprived of property" thing is kind of a red herring anyway, since the cost to make an additional DVD is close to nothing, and stores routinely dispose of unsold merchandise, often ordering more than they think they'll sell so there's no risk of selling out.