Why fund a cure for cancer when you can fight piracy?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sic0048

I realize this topic has morphed a little since it started, but if you look at my original comments, my argument was directed towards those that said the government shouldn't be involved with any attempt to curb piracy.

See that wasn't the way I read the OP, though I see how you could.

Originally Posted by JetreL

How is someone downloading music or a movie off the Internet any different than recording broad casted videos or radio and using it later?Think about what forum we are in?? The only difference that I see is the fact that it is not an authorized outlet granted by the copyright holder...

Exactly, that is 100% exactly right. The "crime" is the process of distributing Copyrighted content without the holder's permission.

Originally Posted by sic0048

So we both agree that downloading stuff is wrong.

But to those that say that stealing a $1 song doesn't necessarily result in a $1 loss of revenue, I say it doesn't matter.

But it absolutely does matter. It matters for the same reason that it matters whether you're driving 5 over the speed limit or 50. We all agree that illegally downloading content is illegal, the debate has never been about whether it's illegal or if it should be.

The argument is over what measures are acceptable. And in order to answer that question you must evaluate the magnitude of the crime/problem.

Take for example theft, shoplifting is theft, so is robbing a bank. The measures taken to prevent each, as well as the penalties are much different between the two, because the magnitude of the crime is different.

The point is that people download illegal material from the internet because they want it. Sure, they probably wouldn't ever buy the material anyway, but that has no place the in argument.

But the amount of "damage" done absolutely does have a place in the argument, again, because the argument is not if it's bad/illegal, the argument is what measures are acceptable or reasonable to curb it.

For example roads are used to transport stolen goods every day, but does that mean that it's reasonable to have scanners at every intersection that scan every car for illegal goods, of that the Police should be able to pull you over whenever they see fit?

Would any other type of thief go out and buy every item they steal? Of course not, but we don't claim that stealing a bike isn't wrong because the thief would have never gone out and bought the bike themselves. If you steal a bike, it is wrong whether or not it resulted in a loss of sale or not. The same applies to digital media. What I don't understand is why it is so hard for some people to come to this same conclusion.

But a stolen $200 results directly in a $200 loss of inventory, a cost of say $150 to the owner. And again, we are NOT arguing whether it's right or wrong, we all agree it's wrong. The argument is over what means are reasonable to prevent it.

Downloading a song is more like buying a fake rolex. If you buy a fake Rolex, you didn't "steal" a $5000 watch, and it's not a $5000 loss to Rolex.

Originally Posted by JetreL

It's simple popular opinion is that downloading music/videos off the Internet is an acceptable crime because the benefits out weigh the risk. Same goes for speeding. I am pretty sure that I do it everyday, I don't want a ticket but I really don't care if I get a ticket The increase in insurance and cost of the ticket while hurts it doesn't out weight the fact that I want to get somewhere quicker. The people passing me on the interstate are probably subconsciously thinking the exact same thing.

But (question to the group) is it reasonable to require your car to monitor your speed and report to the insurance company and police if you go over the speed limit, just to reduce speeding?

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Are you kidding or are you trying to justify theft to yourself? If I write a song and decide to sell it for $x and you download it and listen to it for free, you have stolen it. How can that be any more clear?

If I buy a fake Rolex, have I "stolen" it?

Originally Posted by sic0048

I guess there are just two "world views" in play here.

Personally I believe in the wikipedia definition of theft. "In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. "

The debate is over the definition of "taking".

There are others here trying to argue that there is some "scale" that comes into play when dealing with theft.

No, no, no, the "scale" comes into play regarding what measures are reasonable to prevent the action and what punishment is reasonable for being convicted of it.

Everyone agrees (everyone honest and reasonable IMO, which is everyone in this thread from what I can tell) that illegally downloading copyrighted content is illegal and wrong. However some of us do not agree that the draconian laws and regulations are reasonable given the magnitude of the offense.

If the item taken is small or perceived as invaluable, then that doesn't count as theft or perhaps it is some justifyable form of theft.

No, if the item is small and perceived as invaluable, the means taken to prevent the action and consequences for doing it should be small.

Punching someone in the face is illegal in some circumstances, murdering them is too, both are wrong, but the actions taken to prevent them and the consequences for them are (and should be) very different.

[Zippster]

There's money behind the copyright laws and protection, money always talks.

On the other hand, whole lot of RX companys and more have a lot of money to lose if cancer is cured. Just my conspiracy 2 cents.

[MeInMaui]

Originally Posted by Zippster

There's money behind the copyright laws and protection, money always talks.

On the other hand, whole lot of RX companys and more have a lot of money to lose if cancer is cured. Just my conspiracy 2 cents.

Wow, this comment might just have the highest cynicism density I've ever read. Nice job.

[Fuzzy]

I've got a couple thoughts on the discussion..

1. As a content creator, I am definately against piracy. There are really only two sources of revenue for a musician - performance, and royalties.. the loss of music sales greatly cuts into that income.

2. I get tired of comments saying 'The government isn't supporting the people, just the corporations'... It always makes me wonder just who owns these corporations then? If the 'corporation's' incomes are so irrelevant to you, are you going to stop collecting your paychecks from said corporations? Are you going to get rid of any investments? and bank savings? Seems to me you just want the government to protect those that sit at home, not working (therefore NOT colelcting corporate cash), and downloading music all day... the corps are not just big 'fat cats' sitting there collecting all the money.. A majority of the income of ANY company is put back into the economy.. that means the average joe's pockets.

[Fuzzy]

Another thing: The download of the $1 song doesn't result in the loss of $1 sale. That's pretty much understood. As said, most the content illegally downloaded wouldn't have been purchased by that person.... However, what hasnt' been mentioned is what happens to the value of the legally attained content.

The very possibility of a song being able to be downloaded directly lowers the value of that song. It creates a real, illegally generated, tangible price cap that prevents the content owner from increasing prices to meet demand. As proof, look at the average cost of an album from now, and from 20 years ago. Compared to inflation, the market value of music has dropped considerably. That would be fine, if it was due to ligitimate market forces. However, because that drop has resulted from a significant increase in illegal activity, it is far from acceptable, and it IS a matter for governmental concern.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Another thing: The download of the $1 song doesn't result in the loss of $1 sale. That's pretty much understood. As said, most the content illegally downloaded wouldn't have been purchased by that person.... However, what hasnt' been mentioned is what happens to the value of the legally attained content.

The very possibility of a song being able to be downloaded directly lowers the value of that song. It creates a real, illegally generated, tangible price cap that prevents the content owner from increasing prices to meet demand. As proof, look at the average cost of an album from now, and from 20 years ago. Compared to inflation, the market value of music has dropped considerably. That would be fine, if it was due to ligitimate market forces. However, because that drop has resulted from a significant increase in illegal activity, it is far from acceptable, and it IS a matter for governmental concern.

That an opinion. But with many theories, it starts to fall apart when we start to analyze it further. Based on your assumption, your assumption PC games should cost us about 99 cents, but instead, they are just as expensive as their console based versions that are harder to pirate. When MW2 was released for the Xbox and PS3 and PC the price was the same despite the fact the piracy is rampant for PC games and the Xbox has some sort hack that you can do... so the real "value" of the game should have been much lower, especially on the PC and Xbox, but it wasn't.

The other thing, is that you seem think that piracy de-values the item, which is ironic, given that's what music and book publishers are saying that Apple and Amazon is doing today by selling songs for 99cents and books for 9.99. So, as a consumer, I get to hear how Amazon is "devaluing" the works by allowing people to by it, and how piracy is devaluing the works because it so readily available. These interesting times for sure.

The photocopier didn't kill books... radio didn't kill newspapers... tv didn't kill radio... casette tapes didn't kill music. The internet isn't killing your music business... your are, by not adapting, to a new opportunity. The labels and studios are killing themselves by not adapting to how people want to consume their products. Someday they will, but not before we go through this mess of ACTA, DMCA, and bunch of other acronyms. The knee-jerk reaction of some artists and studios is to try and put things back the way it used to be by lobbying for things like the ACTA. ie, if our internet laws because so draconian as what the ACTA is proposing, you'll probably get your wish. No more buying "singles" for 99 cents. Instead, if you like that one song, buy the album for $22. That's great for artists, but it doesn't strike a fair balance with consumers. Today while CD sales are on the decline, digital downloads (ie, the legit ones) are on the rise, despite the fact that songs are easier to obtain from a non legit source. The problem for studios is that they are not making the same amount of money from selling singles as they did selling CDs, and they are unwilling to invest and grow that business because of that.

Btw, as the son of an artist... I don't condone piracy either... But I just don't buy the fact that it's killing creativity... devaluing entertainment... etc.

[stanger89]

Yeah, IMO if you really take a moment to step back and look at things, you'll realize that the music industries biggest problem isn't internet piracy, it's the movie and video game industries, and likewise the movie industries biggest problems are the music and video game industries, etc.

The music industry always liked to point out the drop in music sales, but IIRC if you looked at total entertainment spending it has gone up dramatically. What has changed is more and more of that spending has shifted from music to movies and games.

And as for the idea that piracy devalues the legal counterpart, that theory implies that the average person finds illegal downloads to be a viable, legitimate alternative to the "legal" thing. If so, how has iTunes sold over 1 billion songs in a format that is technically inferior to many of it's illegal counterparts?

[Djc208]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

2. I get tired of comments saying 'The government isn't supporting the people, just the corporations'... It always makes me wonder just who owns these corporations then? If the 'corporation's' incomes are so irrelevant to you, are you going to stop collecting your paychecks from said corporations? Are you going to get rid of any investments? and bank savings? Seems to me you just want the government to protect those that sit at home, not working (therefore NOT colelcting corporate cash), and downloading music all day... the corps are not just big 'fat cats' sitting there collecting all the money.. A majority of the income of ANY company is put back into the economy.. that means the average joe's pockets.

There's a difference between protecting American business and protecting them at the cost of the American people. If you loose your job the government provides assistance to get you back on your feet, but they don't require your company to give you your job back, or make giving you a pay cut illegal.

These companies want the government to protect their business models (and their profit margins) by making the government enforce their usage model. Truth is no one knows how piracy affects these companies bottom lines, but they are using piracy and these fictitious losses as a poster child for why the government needs to protect them by making you a criminal.

Plus, the slippery slope argument easily fits here. First it was the changes in copyright laws to allow almost unlimited protection of IP, they've been fighting to make "fair use" more restrictive for decades, and ACTA is just more weight behind this movement. If they got all they wanted tomorrow it wouldn't stop there. We've already heard these oddball stories about cell phone ring tones being "public performances" and such, how long till those court cases start becoming more common?

No, if these companies spent the kind of time and money figuring out how to profit from these new technologies as they spend on taking school teachers to court over file sharing they might be seeing record profits while both the old and new business models co-exist.

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by stuckless

The photocopier didn't kill books... radio didn't kill newspapers... tv didn't kill radio... casette tapes didn't kill music. The internet isn't killing your music business... your are, by not adapting, to a new opportunity.

Btw, as the son of an artist... I don't condone piracy either... But I just don't buy the fact that it's killing creativity... devaluing entertainment... etc.

Photocopiers didn't kill books because of two reasons - first there is a true cost to making the copy - it takes paper and toner and lots of time. Second, it isn't an exact reproduction of the book - it is a cheap ass copy that is relatively expensive to make (if for no other reason than the time factor). If there was a "magic machine" in which you could place a book, press a button, wait 15 seconds, and get an exact copy (with proper covers, bindings, paper, etc) of a book for free - people would be stealing books left and right and it would effect book sales.

You would still have these same arguemente being made however - that most people stealing books would have never bought the book, etc, etc, etc. But I doubt there is a person on this forum that would actually agree that if a "magic machine" like that existed, that book sales would not be negatively effected.

Tapes did have an effect on music sales, but not as noticable as now for the same basic reason as listed above - the cost of blank tapes, the time it took to copy them, the time it took, and the fact that you ended up with a cheap ass copy that was much worse quality than the original. Add to that the relatively hard nature of sharing those copies (ie you had to physically hand the tapes to your friends) and it doesn't being to compare to the exact digital copies of music being illegally distributed freely accross international boarders in the matter of seconds.

The other scenerios you listed are not really related to the copying of music. Just becuase there are several avenues to distribute media doesn't mean that one was designed to kill off the other.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by sic0048

Photocopiers didn't kill books because of two reasons - first there is a true cost to making the copy - it takes paper and toner and lots of time. Second, it isn't an exact reproduction of the book - it is a cheap ass copy that is relatively expensive to make (if for no other reason than the time factor). If there was a "magic machine" in which you could place a book, press a button, wait 15 seconds, and get an exact copy (with proper covers, bindings, paper, etc) of a book for free - people would be stealing books left and right and it would effect book sales.

You would still have these same arguemente being made however - that most people stealing books would have never bought the book, etc, etc, etc. But I doubt there is a person on this forum that would actually agree that if a "magic machine" like that existed, that book sales would not be negatively effected.

I guess we have this magic machine today... since with ebooks, it's exactly like cds where you are making an exact copy... and yet with this magic machine, there's still no conclusive evidence to show that more people are choosing to infringe copyright instead of paying for the book. But I do agree with the argument that there was cost associated with "copying" a book using a photocopier.

Tapes did have an effect on music sales, but not as noticable as now for the same basic reason as listed above - the cost of blank tapes, the time it took to copy them, the time it took, and the fact that you ended up with a cheap ass copy that was much worse quality than the original. Add to that the relatively hard nature of sharing those copies (ie you had to physically hand the tapes to your friends) and it doesn't being to compare to the exact digital copies of music being illegally distributed freely accross international boarders in the matter of seconds.

What proof is there that tapes had a negative effect? I'm not saying it didn't, but I'm not sure there's any conclusive proof that it did.. other some well funded study to show that that it did.

The other scenerios you listed are not really related to the copying of music. Just becuase there are several avenues to distribute media doesn't mean that one was designed to kill off the other.

My references to photocopiers, radio, newspapers, etc was more geared towards the FUD that surrounds new technology. ie, when each of these came on the scene, there is mass panic that the newer technology was going to be the end of the older technology/business model. I was reading an interesting article last week about how when H.G. Well's "War of the Worlds" was played on the radio, how there was mass panic and everyone thought aliens were really invading... That's how it was portrayed in the newsprint, whereas the reality the radio reading took many breaks during the broadcast and told the people that it just a story. The newsprint media at the time feared radio as being the end of the newsprint... "no one is going by a paper if they can get their news for free over the air". So the newsprint media falsely wrote about the HG wells story to show how the evil radio could be used to "fool" people. (this sound familar as all??)

Today it's not the photocopier, or the radio that's being "feared", it's the evil "internet"... and it's going to kill the entertainment industry (so we're told).... at least until they decide that they can leverage it... then it would be heralded as the saviour of the entertainment industry... but we still have a few more years before that happens

[Fuzzy]

I don't think anyone here, even myself, as saying pirated music/movies are going to 'kill' the entertainment industry. This thread was started discussing whether the government should get involved in fighting that piracy. The ability to assess the damages is not as important as whether the damages are caused by illegal activity. Because they ARE, I believe it IS the responsibility of the government to do something to combat it.

[ccsmoke]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I don't think anyone here, even myself, as saying pirated music/movies are going to 'kill' the entertainment industry. This thread was started discussing whether the government should get involved in fighting that piracy. The ability to assess the damages is not as important as whether the damages are caused by illegal activity. Because they ARE, I believe it IS the responsibility of the government to do something to combat it.

I hope not, thats all we need need is more taxes. I think businesses can come up with a win/win situation. Look at Pandora....35 million revenue after being on the verge of shutdown....why, they changed their business model to more advertising....and pay version without adds, higher bitrate, and all you can eat without raping the consumer. This also lets other artists that have not been heard before or existing artist's that still haven't got their riaa settlement checks in the mail , to sell more records along with getting royalties. I look for it to also promote concerts and memorabilia sales which is where the money is at for the artists.
If goverment gets involved they can cut the lobbyist spending for the greedy RIAA.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sic0048

If there was a "magic machine" in which you could place a book, press a button, wait 15 seconds, and get an exact copy (with proper covers, bindings, paper, etc) of a book for free - people would be stealing books left and right and it would effect book sales.

I agree there would probably be a lot more copying going on, but I disagree that it's certain it would affect sales.

You would still have these same arguemente being made however - that most people stealing books would have never bought the book, etc, etc, etc. But I doubt there is a person on this forum that would actually agree that if a "magic machine" like that existed, that book sales would not be negatively effected.

I would. I argue that there's very little evidence either way, and that what evidence there is, indicates there's very little effect on sales:
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/Fil..._March2004.pdf
"Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically
indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates."

In fact if you read through, there is data that suggests a small positive relationship between downloads and sales: "For the top quartile, downloads
have a relatively large positive effect (150 downloads increase sales by one copy) though this is estimated rather imprecisely. These results are also inconsistent with the argument that file sharing is reducing sales of commercially important albums." (page 24)

Tapes did have an effect on music sales, but not as noticable as now for the same basic reason as listed above - the cost of blank tapes, the time it took to copy them, the time it took, and the fact that you ended up with a cheap ass copy that was much worse quality than the original. Add to that the relatively hard nature of sharing those copies (ie you had to physically hand the tapes to your friends) and it doesn't being to compare to the exact digital copies of music being illegally distributed freely accross international boarders in the matter of seconds.

The other scenerios you listed are not really related to the copying of music. Just becuase there are several avenues to distribute media doesn't mean that one was designed to kill off the other.

The problem with this whole argument is that there are hundreds of variables that affect music sales, sales of competing products (DVDs, BDs, Games), quality/desirability of content, etc, and precious few studies have been done to eliminate those.

What's happening is this, music sales level off or drop. The content industry goes "hm, why is that?" And they look around see a number of things going on, increasing DVD sales, drastically increasing game sales, complaints about the quality/homogenization of the music, etc.

But lucky for them, there's piracy and they can throw a lot of cash at Washington and simply outlaw something.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I don't think anyone here, even myself, as saying pirated music/movies are going to 'kill' the entertainment industry. This thread was started discussing whether the government should get involved in fighting that piracy.

I disagree, though maybe my interpretation is different. But I took the OP as complaining about the secret and underhanded tactics that are being undertaken in the name of "protecting" copyrights.

The ability to assess the damages is not as important as whether the damages are caused by illegal activity. Because they ARE, I believe it IS the responsibility of the government to do something to combat it.

And I agree, but I firmly believe that they simply need to enforce current law, not create new laws.

IMO the war on digital copying (namely DMCA) which started in the 90's has done far, far more to hurt the industry/economy than the increase in unauthorized downloading.

Why do I think this? It's simple really.

The iPod.

Look at how many products are out there to play digital music. Products which exist because it is easy, and legal to make a digital copy of a song you bought on CD. iPods, MP3 players, Sonos, Squeezebox, Escient, etc, etc. How many billions is that market worth, a market that was created by the open system that is CDs without encryption.

Contrast this with the dramatically different DVD and more so Blu-ray market. 13 years after the introduction of DVD, there is only one system you can buy off the shelf which can create a digital library of movies from DVD, Kaleidescape, and that system costs upwards of $30,000, and the company is constantly in a legal battle.

How many more products would there be if it were legal to copy a DVD? How many billions would the market for home video servers be if Sony and Pioneer, and Microsoft, and SageTV could really get into the market?

I'm all for the DOJ/FBI/local law enforcement going after people who share copyrighted content online, people who sell pirated copies. But they should do so within current law. They should have to get warrants and subpoenas. The last thing that should be done is for more laws to be created which further restrict the use of content, therefore making it less useful and less valuable.

IMO DRM and the DMCA do more to devalue content than piracy does.

As far as "downloaders" go, I think they represent a huge untapped market, not the enemy. IMO they are a manifestation of a desire to consume content, but at a lower quality and lower price point. If the music and movie industries can figure out how to tap into that market, instead of fighting it, they'll be golden, and it will be better for all of us.

[stuckless]

I thought I'd throw this into the mix as well... given how the ACTA aims to obliterate fair use...

This study, as repored in wired.com, shows the fair use economy to be approx 4.7 trillion. Now I take the number with a gain of salt, as I do with the "cost of piracy numbers". It's interesting that this study is backed by microsoft, google, ebay, oracle and other large corporations.

So while the government could step in and save the jobs (maybe) of a few content creators by implementing the ACTA... the could actually cost 17 million other jobs (maybe) in the "fair use" econony. There is no coincidence on the timing of this report... this is a direct reply to the current ongoing ACTA negotiations.

[Clift]

Downloading a song is more like buying a fake rolex. If you buy a fake Rolex, you didn't "steal" a $5000 watch, and it's not a $5000 loss to Rolex.

Stanger: This is the single most relevant analogy of illegal downloads I have ever read. Good job!

[Opus4]

Not really -- you've actually paid for and received a fake in that case -- you've gotten a Rollex, not a Rolex. When downloading/copying media illegally, you've gotten the original (or pretty close to it) for nothing. After downloading something, you (probably) didn't get a movie re-enacted by some local actors with a camcorder nor did you get poor covers of songs by someone calling themselves "The Beedles". (Still theft by someone in that chain, basing the for-sale items on someone else's creation that doesn't belong to the seller, if it is patented/copyrighted/etc & the seller doesn't have the rights to it.)

You might pay a small fee that doesn't go to the artists if you get it from certain sites -- and if you got a real Rolex for a small price, it probably was stolen, just like the music is essentially stolen.

- Andy

[sic0048]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I agree there would probably be a lot more copying going on, but I disagree that it's certain it would affect sales.

How could it not effect sales? OK - so a person that copies a book might not have bought that particular book - I can agree with that. But it would effect book sales SOME if not an exact 1 to 1 ratio. If I spend time reading a stolen book, that is one less book I might have bought irregardless if it is the exact same title or not.

But the agruement should not revolve around lost sales anyway IMHO. Take your counterfeit Rolex comment for example. I take it to mean that if someone that buys a counterfeit item they would never have paid the money for the real item. If this was true, why do manufactures fight counterfeiting so much? After all, according to that arguement, none of the counterfeit items effect their bottom line, so why would a company spend $$ to try to curb it?

[Clift]

Originally Posted by sic0048

But the agruement should not revolve around lost sales anyway IMHO. Take your counterfeit Rolex comment for example. I take it to mean that if someone that buys a counterfeit item they would never have paid the money for the real item. If this was true, why do manufactures fight counterfeiting so much? After all, according to that arguement, none of the counterfeit items effect their bottom line, so why would a company spend $$ to try to curb it?

Well not the least of which is the fact that someone is profiting from these counterfeits. The other part is that counterfeiting dilutes brand image because the quality may not be up to par, while the purchaser of said product does not advertise that it is, in fact a fake. In this instance I agree on the Rolex comment because I truly believe that the market does not cross, so Rolex does not lose a potential sale (that's my opinion, of course). However, I agree that may not fly in the case of fake Prada or LV purses. In those instances, there may or may not be a loss of sale. Some people would purchase a $500 purse, but then again that same person might just as soon buy a knock-off for $50 and call it a day. While some would purchase a $50 knock-off but would scoff at the real thing for $500.

Regardless, the "if you can't afford it" argument makes sense here.

[tmiranda]

A thought question:

Let's suppose somebody invented a machine that could automatically, and cheaply, replicate a car. Just feed the machine a few hundred pounds of raw steel and plastic and provide it with a detailed schematic of how to build the car and, like magic, in a few hours you have a car.

Let's further suppose the detailed schematics are very complicated to develop, but once developed can easily be electronically copied.

Companies spring up offerng these detailed schematics for $99 and specifically say "you can use the schematic to produce cars for your personal use, but you can't sell the cars. Furthermore the schematics are licensed to you and you alone."

If you make copies of the schematics and give them away have you "stolen" anything? Have you broken the law?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing you have not stolen anything, BUT you have broken the law by violating the terms upon which you purchased the schematics.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by sic0048

How could it not effect sales? OK - so a person that copies a book might not have bought that particular book - I can agree with that. But it would effect book sales SOME if not an exact 1 to 1 ratio. If I spend time reading a stolen book, that is one less book I might have bought regardless if it is the exact same title or not.

I think the issue, is that we don't know how it does affect sales, if at all. If there is a 1-1 ratio of "lost sales", then James Cameron must be really pissed right now. While Avatar was the MOST pirated movie online when it was released.... it also was the biggest box office hit of all time. I can't imagine how many billions of dollars this guy lost

While I might consume a book that I got for "free" it never means that I'll actually buy it. This isn't about whether or not it's right or wrong... but whether or not it's a lost sale, and I think the counterfit argument holds (personally). Also, I love donuts, and every morning the guy that I go with for cofee, buys 2. I never buy any. But if he buys me a donut or if someone brings them into the office, I'll happy eat them (more than one sometimes, because I really do like them). I think many people fall into the boat... I like it enough, if it free... but I wouldn't spend my money on it.

But the agrument should not revolve around lost sales anyway IMHO. Take your counterfeit Rolex comment for example. I take it to mean that if someone that buys a counterfeit item they would never have paid the money for the real item. If this was true, why do manufactures fight counterfeiting so much? After all, according to that arguement, none of the counterfeit items effect their bottom line, so why would a company spend $$ to try to curb it?

I think the biggest challenge with counterfit goods is quality and safety, and whether or not the person buying the goods understands that it is counterfit.

If I bought the "fake" rolex, thinking that it was real, and I paid $5000 for it, then it's a lost sale for sure. I think this was the original agenda for the ACTA was to protect consumers against this fraud, since it results in a direct loss. The person that can't afford a timex, that buys the fake rolex for $50 knows that it's fake, and they are never going to buy the real thing. (but they can still impress their friends at least)