Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
and it only took me 3 years to explaining to get you to understand that.
except it the same principle in place zero economic damage at the time of the "infringement"
but a future economic loss (reruns in the vcr case vs future sales in that region)
you still haven't explain why you believe the future revenue (your justification) is valid in the second case.
the whole point is at the time of the infringement i changed the value of the content from zero dollars to zero dollars in both cases.
If i perform the same act when the content is available i change the value from XX dollars (it sale price) to zero dollars and of course an infringement happens
now if you said
i 100% agree that an infringement
|
Here is my belief:
Say a show like Game of Thrones never aired where you live. It never aired there because HBO doesn't even offer service to you so there is no way for you to get the service and pay to watch the show when it airs. However, several months later they are going to release the show on DVD and sell it in your area.
Under these circumstances if you choose to download it before the DVDs are available some people would make the argument that you are doing them no economic harm because it wasn't for sale so you aren't costing them a sale. I would disagree. If you download it you are a lot less likely to then buy the DVDs at a later date. If many people download it could cause the interest in the DVD in that area to be much smaller than it otherwise would be. I am not saying one download would be one lost sale, but I am saying it it likely would lead to some lost sales and therefore cause economic harm.
So it is simple. If a show airs that you never had access to during the first run, but will eventually be available on DVD (or PPV or in some way for sale) and you choose to download it even though you know it will eventually be for sale you are causing economic harm.