Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
That may very well be true, but it doesn't excuse their illegal activities. It's like saying "Fred's a drug dealer, but it's OK - he's kind to small furry animals". The fact that these people may perhaps also buy content does not "legitimise" their illegal downloading of other content.
|
It does not legitimize piracy. It does counter the claim that filesharing is financially damaging to the entertainment industries... if the sharers are buying substantially more in order to share with people who won't buy at all, the infringement is not financially harmful. (On a large scale. In individual cases, I'm sure some are harmed and while others are helped tremendously. We hear anecdotal accounts from both of those; large-scale data are not widely available.)
It's much harder to make a case against non-damaging activities. Not impossible--financial damage isn't the only measure of copyright infringement--but it does hamper media companies' ability to convince the public of the evils of filesharing if they can't say what damage it does to them.
It's closer to "Fred's a drug dealer, but he's okay - he spends his drug money on youth centers and ambulances." It's harder to prove he's evil if he's obviously helping the community, in addition to whatever harm he's causing. Proving he's criminal wouldn't be too difficult--but proving he's a menace and substantial resources should be spent stopping him is more difficult.