Illegal streaming: police take action against providers from Germany
Illegal streaming: police take action against providers from Germany
www.heise.de
Illegal streaming: police take action against providers from Germany
18 comments
18 comments
Illegal streaming: police take action against providers from Germany
Illegal streaming: police take action against providers from Germany
Natürlich. Jeder hätte auf jeden Fall das legale Angebot abonniert, gäbe es da nicht diesen illegalen Service. Klar, macht Sinn. Gibt auf keinen Fall die Möglichkeit, dass die Leute dann einfach nichts abonnieren, natürlich nicht, nein.
Edit: sorry, didn't realise this might be an English community. Just wrote sarcastically that obviously everyone who subscribed to the illegal service will now certainly go for the legal alternative. Which is why it totally makes sense to mark these as lost revenue. Absolutely not possible that people might just no subscribe to the legal service, nope.
The damage is calculaded like this, because those who've used the streaming service to watch a movie would have needed to purchase some form of a licence to do so legally. It's not a question of whether they would have had the money or the willing to do so. It's the same like someone would sneak into a cinema and watch a movie. They usually would be required to purchase a ticket to do so. The damage is not a question of whether they would have had the money for that or wouldn't have went to the cinema if purchasing a ticket was necessary.
This is mainly an issue of the terms damage and loss being overloaded with different meanings.
If the act of unlicensed access comes at no distribution or access cost to the creator and publisher, then it's a different kind of damage than if you damage or steal physical property. Stealing from the official distribution channel may incur cost.
All of these are unrelated to production cost and right to [controlled] distribution.
When a car is stolen from a car dealership, their property is lost. They can no longer sell it. Digital content however, is copyable and distributable at marginal cost, whether it is accessed in other instances without a license or not.
This discrepancy is what leads to these very different views and comments of damage not being real damage. They have not "lost" anything after all. They still own the product and the rights. You can argue about forms of loss, but it's undeniable that they still have these.
You basically wrote what I did, but from a different viewpoint.
Your example with the cinema is also a typical apple and oranges example comparing a digital distribution with a physical service. Yes, when you sneak into a cinema the cinema provider is losing revenue because you take a seat someone else might have paid for. So at some point the cinema is full and cannot accommodate any more people that paid which would prompt the provider to check tickets.
There is no such scenario for digital distribution. You are not taking anyone's space. The provider can sell their product infinitely often. You even already pay for the traffic you cause with your internet connection. It is a very different situation but is always equated because online piracy is of course the worst problem ever.
They're using copyright math.
I agree, but you broke rule 1 of this community (English language only)
Edit: I wrote the comment before I saw your edit.
Four germans meet in a comment section on Lemmy.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We have no humour.
At least when it's not exact numbers like here, it could be "10% is still millions". But obviously, I doubt that's their calculation. It usually is the nonsense "full" calc.