A member of the public is given - as a gift - a DVD for his own personal use. It has on it a final cut version of an as yet unreleased movie. That gift is accepted in good faith. The recipient makes copies of the DVD and begins selling them, in small numbers, at about 20% of the market value of most DVD movies.

The demand for these DVDs skyrockets after the public release of the movie. The sales top 25,000 after the movie has been in the theatres for a month. Final reckoning suggests over 250,000 copies sold.

Theatre attendances are low, less than 30% of the expected returns, and the distributors uncover “the unofficial version” and the person making the copies.

In Court, the distributors state that their losses as a result of the unauthorised copies exceeds $750,000 in lost theatre attendances and subsequent video and DVD sales.
__________________________________________________

Your reaction to this? Has the maker of the movie any right to complain because his film was worth less than estimates had suggested? How much has the distributor lost if anything?

If, as the proponents of “the right to copy” suggest, nothing has been lost then why did the makers of this movie ever bother to make it in the first place? If, as the supporters of piracy suggest, there is no loss to the makers of a CD, then why is music recorded?

I agree with your conclusions. I agree with your rationale.

BTW the donor of the DVD in the example above was an employee of the film maker. I suspect that if the donor is ever found then he will be on charges of theft as a servant - and will get about six months free board and lodging from the government for it.

The Court ruled that the recipient should have considered the right of the donor to make the gift, but that receipt as a gift did not constitute a criminal act (receiving stolen property). The copying, and sale, of the DVDs was in breach of the Copyright Act.