If the price of a movie were composed out of the cost of the materials for the DVD, this argument would be correct. But the price is needed to compensate the people who made the movie. (I don't say that current movie pricing is equitable.)

Content creators deserve to be paid for their work. Taking it without payment and without their agreement is stealing.

> Content creators deserve to be paid for their work. Taking it without payment and without their agreement is stealing.

I wonder how much Hollywood share its revenue with the content creators, not actors but more like writers, filmmakers, and all those that _create_.

are there numbers somewhere?

EDIT: s/studios/filmmakers -- thanks icebraining!

How much does Hollywood share with studios? Which Hollywood are you referring to?

I agree this car analogy is flawed because it correlates a movie to a car as if they are both goods. Media is actually a service (a recorded performance). This not only causes this analogy to break down but your underlying argument that because the owner still has a copy it is therefore acceptable.

Ok, lets say I instead decide I don't like how companies sell their cars, so I 'protest' by stealing a copy of the schematics for the new 2016 model of some car. I construct and sell them for the price of materials, meaning I make no profit from them. Many people who wouldn't have paid 100k for the car now get the car for much cheaper. I'm robin hood now, right?