Let me explain here, as just one example. There was a tv show that was broadcast in the late 2000’s - early 2010’s. About 5-6 years ago, right when I felt nostalgic and wanted to watch it again, the tv show in question was pulled from all major streaming services, and DVDs of the show were not produced (or if they were, I was never able to get my hands on them). The only way that this cartoonish show was watchable for a time was via second-hand archives on YouTube, dailymotion, etc. However, despite the fact that the show was made inaccessible, the copyright holder’s official website states even to this day that the show is copyright, which means that unofficial uploads on YouTube should be in violation of copyright (the YouTube channels were just amateurish accounts and not credible, official accounts, just to be clear). As such, it was ambiguous as to whether the production company was going to lease the rights to the show. Whilst interest in the show has gone now, it did make me wonder: is it ever justifiable (either legally or ethically, or morally) to pirate media that has been completely pulled from circulation despite the original owner maintaining copyright (and therefore ownership) of? Or, is it (legally, ethically or morally) justifiable to pirate media where the copyright status is ambiguous (i.e. you don’t know if anyone owns it) [classic case study I always hear about: British PSAs, icons of 70’s 80’s and 90’s kids childhoods, yet locked behind copyright doors whose keys may lie in the hand of legal ambiguity]
Someone could make the argument that the secondary market for media is part of the total ecosystem. Someone might be more inclined to buy something new if they know they can resell it later so the secondary market impacts the new market in that way. The creator doesn’t see any of the money being exchanged on the secondary market though so the people really benefiting from it are resellers and collectors trying to unload something. They’re hurt if you choose to pirate instead of buying used.
But in terms of the creator a pirated copy and a used copy are no different. If your desire is to make sure the creator gets what they deserve then you’re best option is new DVD’s or streaming. But, if like the show you’re currently after those options aren’t available, I’d say there’s no reason not to pirate the media. If you still want to make sure the creator gets paid keep an eye on them and buy/stream it if they ever release it.
Wow, that’s a very well thought, articulated opinion. Thanks for sharing
I’d argue the creator sees the second purchaser’s revenue in the original price of the product, and the original purchaser may not have bought if they couldn’t resell.
Net sale is the same, just distributed across two consumers.
Totally fair, I’ve certainly heard the argument made to justify the outrageous costs in the Magic: The Gathering secondary market. What I don’t like about the argument though is that resellers aren’t the majority of purchasers and the number of people buying media solely to resell is a small fraction of the market. I’ll grant you that a small fraction still could be a non-trivial chunk of change for the creator but ultimately why someone buys something doesn’t matter all that much.
Reselling media particularly is an insane risk. Take OP’s show, I don’t think they ever named it, but if the creators dropped a limited run DVD or Blu-ray series tomorrow there would be no telling whether a secondary market would exist at all. If the show isn’t streaming and doesn’t already have a DVD release, it’s bound to be a very obscure show that never got very popular. Those buyers hoping to bet on being able to flip the DVD’s later might be out of luck. So it doesn’t really matter if the theoretical resale-ability factors in or not, the new purchase is made regardless.
But I don’t feel particularly strong about this aspect of the discussion, in fact I almost talked myself out of my position while writing this.
Good points.
There’s certainly nuance there to be considered, which my statement doesn’t really address.