My answer remains as it was before: the producers of content, who sell to a dwindling number of honest buyers as a result of a growing number of dishonest freeloaders who believe content should be priced at its marginal cost. That's an externality of downloading and using content you would not otherwise pay for.
But I think this argument is a red herring. Fewer people today buy DVDs, now that they can be easily downloaded. Ten years from now --- barring the success of BD+ --- it will be trivial to download DVDs, and fewer people still will buy them. I don't think reasonable people dispute this fact.
The drop in content revenue comes directly out of the hide of the content producers. The issue isn't "the people who wouldn't buy the content anyways". The people who gorge themselves on content they wouldn't otherwise buy don't buy any content. It's ironic that they excuse themselves by taking yet more illicit content.
You keep bringing up things I haven't said, and not answering the question directly.
The fact is, if I download a movie that I would not have bought or rented if downloading was not available, then the producers do not have a dwindling number of buyers. They have the exact same number of buyers as if I didn't download it. I say this means no one was hurt. You still seem to disagree, but still have not pointed to an actual way anyone would be hurt.
I don't understand your argument. You seem to be saying that nobody is "hurt" by your download, because the marginal cost to the copyright owner is zero. But that's true of all downloads, not just yours. By your logic, how are producers ever compensated?
The answer to your question is, everybody is hurt, because every illicit download robs content creators of the incentive to create, and content producers of the incentive to distribute.
It's clear that in your case, when you download a movie you have no intention of buying, the stolen incentive is not great. But it is not zero: your download clearly helps establish the climate that facilitates other downloads (for instance, by drawing ad revenue to torrent search engines, or simply by creating the social proof that enables otherwise honest people to rationalize downloading).
In the end, even insults to the market as small as yours can become overwhelming when multiplied by the tens of millions of actors.
Suppose I don't tell anyone I've downloaded. Then it wouldn't create a climate. Let's assume for now, for clarity, that I do nothing to contribute to a climate. I never post to torrent forums, never help people get torrents, I never seed, I never upload, I never encourage anyone else to download, etc... I have not said anything to defend taking actions like those to create a climate that legitimizes downloading.
A download only "robs content creators of the incentive to create" if it prevents a purchase (or chance of a purchase). I am not defending all downloading, but I am saying there is a possible way of downloading that doesn't do this. If the condition I specified holds (would not have been bought either way), then the content creator isn't hurt. He gets just the same benefits an incentives as he would have in a world without that kind of downloading.
He may be hurt for a different reason, but not for lack of a purchase because, by premise, that purchase wasn't going to happen in any case.
What conclusions should be drawn from this is not obvious. Agreeing it is true is an important starting point before drawing conclusions.
I concede that you can define an arbitrary set of circumstances where, in a vacuum, you download a file without perturbing the universe in any measurable way. This isn't a starting point for drawing conclusions until you answer the question of "how those circumstances could ever occur".
Furthermore, it's not persuasive. You're avoiding the obvious fact that these innocuous downloads --- those that not only involve people who would not pay for content, but who are also so hygienic in their downloading practices that they do not contribute to the climate --- are a tiny minority of all downloads.
Finally, if we've really arrived at the crux of your argument --- that you can personally define one form of illicit download that imposes no costs on society --- then you've already lost the "debate" (such as it is). We're talking about Torrentspy, a huge contributor to the climate you're meticulously and artificially trying to avoid helping.
I didn't say anything about Torrentspy. Do you have any suggestions for what I can do in future discussions so that people listen more to what I actually say?
As for how common this type of downloading is, do you think if torrent sites didn't exist that even half of the downloads they facilitate would have been purchases instead? I don't think most downloaders have enough money to buy that much stuff.
Respectfully, you might start by remembering what you originally said, considering the plain meaning of your words, and the context in which you say them. In this case, you begun this thread by referring to the "vast amount of good" that "sites like" Torrentspy do.
Your other argument seems to be that we shouldn't concern ourselves with the costs inflicted by torrent sites, because they are small --- "not even half of the downloads" directly rob producers of revenue. I don't care to chase that argument down. If you believe your argument is persuasive, I have good news for you: you needn't bother paying your taxes, either. The marginal cost to the government of losing Bruce Lewis' tax revenue is very nearly zero. In fact, if everyone like you stopped paying taxes, we'd be no worse off. Under your argument's rubric, I can see no reason for us to trouble ourselves with the task of collecting taxes from Scheme web developers at all.
You ignored the other ways in which one illicit downloader contributes to other downloaders, and ignored the original point, which is that torrent sites like Torrentspy do not obviously do "vast amounts of good", as you originally claimed. Do you feel like your arguments are convincing?
All freeloading is vastly good for the freeloaders, Kevin. Do we need to go through the pointless excercise of demonstrating all the instances of freeloading that you aren't comfortable with?
>Do we need to go through the pointless excercise of demonstrating all the instances of freeloading that you aren't comfortable with?
Go for it.
In the end, I am comfortable with the damage done to content producers. Since there appears to be no solution that will maintain the status quo, there's going to be dramatic change in the information industry. Already, smart commercial software developers sell a service rather than a binary executable. I love live music, soon I will be able to see more of it. There will be less uber-produced studio music, but I'm fine with that. I don't care for Hollywood blockbuster movies. They're ok sometimes, but I can handle a future without them. I watch TV with advertisements when it is available online; generally there are far fewer commercials than in the cable/broadcast version.
What do you think the solution to the problem is? Or describe your idealized where content producers are fairly compensated when technology allows for their works to be freely copied.
Which way could a careful user not avoid contributing to that kind of climate?
The "vast" good is the over 50% of downloads (my estimate) that wouldn't have been purchases anyway. Even if it's 5%, that's still a lot of value of movies/etc that people get that is good.
How is it "good" for people to get things they place a value of zero dollars on? How does that "good" outweigh the damage they do by disincentivizing content creation? If infinitessimally small costs are OK in the case of torrents, as you say they are, why vaccinate your children? That, too, imposes a tiny cost on everyone else. Why pay your taxes? Why not send spam? Your spam messages impose a tiny cost on everyone, compared to the major spam factories.
It's not a value of zero dollars. People don't buy (or rent) things when the price is higher than the value to them. If the price is $10, and the value to them is $3, they wouldn't buy it.
Your argument is incoherent. It observes that, at $70,000, a BMW M5 is priced too high for me to buy it. So, I should simply take it, blaming BMW for mispricing it.
In the movie downloading case, who is being hurt when they wouldn't have bought it anyway?
You haven't answered that.
Note also that I didn't say any of the stuff you are calling a specious point.