Re:Kim Dotcom's Extradition to the U.S. Given Green Light by...
by realusername on Thursday August 15, 2024 @03:14PM
(#41259384)
> No one can prove or even know what the impact of piracy is on a given work's short-term or long-term revenue
Just that is an indication on how little piracy affects revenue, the effect is at best so small that it's effectively invisible.
> I think there's a reason courts never debate this question, though.
Because discussing about the real financial impact of piracy is a sure way to throw a lot of pretty extreme copyright laws out of the window.
They really don't want to start this debate. Piracy is just a boogeyman at this point to pass ever stronger IP laws and the large IP conglomerates are pretty aware of that.
> there is business "harm" to piracy, but it's (mostly) vastly overstated
I'm not sure how relevant the harm is. It seems like copyright law doesn't have exceptions for "harmlessness"* -- and even if that were a carve-out, it would be a stupid one for the kind of offenses we're discussing, since it hinges on hundreds of millions of individual 'butterfly effect' decisions and how they hypothetically would have unfolded in a fictional world without piracy vs. the real world. No one can prove or even know what the impact of piracy is on a given work's short-term or long-term revenue. Maybe "Firefly" was boosted massively in its long-term commercial success by piracy, but some $400 physics textbook had materially less sales. I think there's a reason courts never debate this question, though.
*I'm aware there are specific exceptions for things like fair use and timeshifting -- I just don't believe all 'harmless' acts are protected or that that was ever even intended.