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.
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.
Of course, yes.