[Uchuujinsan]

The people you share it with would then acquire it for free.  

If you buy a movie and make me a copy, I didn't buy it. I acquired it for free.

If you wouldn't miss the difference, than you wouldn't make the example with your private photos. The difference is again, in the statement I made under "1." in the beginning.

"2. In a discussion with two of my friends, we came to the conclusion, that a limitation of copyright to only two years wouldn't hurt the movie or music industrie that much. Movies are a profit or loss after the first few weeks in the cinemas afaik, so what's afterwards only matters for DVDs."

You're talking about sales figures and mention that 2 years would be a good cutoff. Why exactly did you pick the 2 year time frame then?

Sales figures in contect with cinema? Well...
We came to 2 years because that's the time were movies go to free tv in most cases, meaning I can watch them for free anyway.
Still, the exact time is open to discussion, the point is the magnitude of protection.

Wait, copyright law isn't designed to give owners of works the ability to do what they want with their work?

Please describe what copyright law is intended to do then.

Copyright law has absolutely no connection with how much money an artist makes. It doesn't care whether you make more money, less money, no money, anything. The fact that artists live well or don't live well is completely irrelevant.

I described what copyright is intended to do already.

Then I don't see the point you ARE trying to make. Information is needed for democracy but the means to convey it isn't free.

I am saying access to information is a basic need in a democracy. We already clarified that basic needs are not free.

I didn't say anything wasn't a basic need because you can buy it. I said that items that exist for your use for free can still be sold and it's a choice to do so.

You don't HAVE to buy a computer or pay for internet, you CHOOSE to do so because it is easier.

And no, computers are not a basic need. No matter how addicted to its use you may be.

If you make that argumentation about a roof over your head and food, neither of those are basic needs either.
I don't have to buy or pay for food, there are other, legal ways to get it, hence it's no basic need.

People were trying to tell me that people don't have unlimited funds?   I was aware of the fact that this was the case. I've never said people should have the funds to buy all the works in the world.

I've yet to argue anything else. I don't care how much they may or may not lose. If they don't want to give it to me for free, I don't get it! It's not mine to take!


If you don't have the money to buy it, you don't get it! So sad. They own it. It is theirs.

It again boils down to greed. You WANT it, you feel you deserve it. You desire it, but you don't want to pay for it because you want other things more. So you steal it... oh I'm sorry, you don't "steal" it, you "illegally posses that which you have no right".

You want the new movies, songs, games. Things people put time and effort and money into. You want these things but don't want to buy them. Too damn bad. You didn't make them, you didn't create them. They aren't yours.

You want to benefit from someone's work without giving them anything for it. They don't want you to have it. You don't get it then.

You are making a different argument know, corresponding to my point 1.
But the original question of thesizzler was answered, even if you don't like that answer.
If you can't spend money anymore, the monetary piracy damage is zero. Thanks for agreeing on that one.

[Blue Lion]

If you wouldn't miss the difference, than you wouldn't make the example with your private photos. The difference is again, in the statement I made under "1." in the beginning.

Being second hand owner doesn't make it any better. Well I didn't take it from MGM, I took it from Steve.

Sales figures in contect with cinema? Well...
We came to 2 years because that's the time were movies go to free tv in most cases, meaning I can watch them for free anyway.
Still, the exact time is open to discussion, the point is the magnitude of protection.

I'm pretty sure TV stations need to get the rights to show the movies on TV. It's still not "free".

I described what copyright is intended to do already.

"I wanted to say, that professional artists should be able to live of their work if they are good."

As in "They should be able to sell it"? Is that what you meant?

I wanted to say, that professional artists should be able to live of their work if they are good.If you make that argumentation about a roof over your head and food, neither of those are basic needs either.
I don't have to buy or pay for food, there are other, legal ways to get it, hence it's no basic need.

2 points.

1. Housing and food are very much basic needs. You'll die without them.

2. I already said food and housing aren't always free. They can and are sold. The idea that this information should somehow be free because it is a basic need is wrong because basic needs like food and water are sold.

You are making a different argument know, corresponding to my point 1.
But the original question of thesizzler was answered, even if you don't like that answer.
If you can't spend money anymore, the monetary piracy damage is zero. Thanks for agreeing on that one.

Thesizzler asked and answered a question no one asked.

You guys keep pounding away that it doesn't hurt their business. It doesn't matter if it hurts their business or you make them a gazillion dollars. It's not your stuff to decide how it gets used.

You don't do other things with people's stuff and tell them it's ok cause you'll make them money. Let them take their stuff and run their business. Stop trying to pretend you're some kind of crusader for their protection when all you really want is their work for free.

[Polpolion]

You guys keep pounding away that it doesn't hurt their business. It doesn't matter if it hurts their business or you make them a gazillion dollars. It's not your stuff to decide how it gets used.

First of all, if we were dealing with stealing something like a car, something that could not just be copied and pasted however many times you wanted, I'd agree with you. If I designed a car that with the press of a button could duplicate with no cost whatsoever, hell, I'd give the everyone in the world fourteen cars each.

The game owns the IP to the game, not each individual copy. Or do you honestly think they own each copy? Can they just waltz up to your door and demand that you hand back their game? No.

Giving a friend a copy of a game is less wrong than a mother giving her car to her son when she buys another one. Or do you think we should ban that, too?

If video game and music producer's policies were instituted everywhere in life, it'd be a felony to let someone borrow your car, a felony to have someone over for dinner and eat your food, a felony for public libraries to give out books (by the way, many do indeed have video games that you can check out for free), a felony to look at pictures of privately owned paintings...

Seriously. If you claim that you made the game, or if you start selling your copies, then the companies can whine and ***** all day long, but once again:

A) If it does not hurt the companies it is not wrong.
B) The companies don't own the DVDs you bought.
C) The biggest reason stealing is wrong is because you're denying other people's resources. This does not fall into that category thanks to copy and paste.

Now let's say it's actual piracy instead of giving friends a copy of the game you bought. What changes? Not a whole lot. The Pirate Bay was just like eBay except everything was free, and that when a transaction takes place, no one has to give their copy to someone else.

Now if you think eBay is a morally incorrect way of doing things, then we have an issue bigger than this here.

[Blue Lion]

First of all, if we were dealing with stealing something like a car, something that could not just be copied and pasted however many times you wanted, I'd agree with you. If I designed a car that with the press of a button could duplicate with no cost whatsoever, hell, I'd give the everyone in the world fourteen cars each.

The game owns the IP to the game, not each individual copy. Or do you honestly think they own each copy? Can they just waltz up to your door and demand that you hand back their game? No.

No, that's why you buy the rights to it. That's what you're giving them money for. You're not giving these guys upwards of 70 bucks for a CD, it's the stuff that's on it.

Giving a friend a copy of a game is less wrong than a mother giving her car to her son when she buys another one. Or do you think we should ban that, too?

Yea but two cars were purchased. One game was in your example.

If video game and music producer's policies were instituted everywhere in life, it'd be a felony to let someone borrow your car,

Except when you buy a car, you're buying the car itself. When you buy a movie, you're not buying "the movie" because it's not a real object. You're buying the rights to view the movie and show it to friends maybe if the rights say that.

It's how intellectual property works. That's why intellectual property and physical property are two different things.

Seriously. If you claim that you made the game, or if you start selling your copies, then the companies can whine and ***** all day long, but once again:

A) If it does not hurt the companies it is not wrong.
B) The companies don't own the DVDs you bought.
C) The biggest reason stealing is wrong is because you're denying other people's resources. This does not fall into that category thanks to copy and paste.

The biggest reason it's wrong is because it's not yours. You keep telling me what I think the biggest problem is and then shooting it down. We call those strawmen.

But on to your major points.

A. Yes it is wrong. You saying it doesn't hurt them doesn't make it so. When THEY say "take our stuff for free" then you can say it's not wrong.
B. Again, they don't own the DVD, they own the rights to the work on it.
C. The biggest reason stealing is wrong is because you're taking work that isn't yours. Round and round we go.

Now let's say it's actual piracy instead of giving friends a copy of the game you bought. What changes? Not a whole lot. The Pirate Bay was just like eBay except everything was free, and that when a transaction takes place, no one has to give their copy to someone else.

Now if you think eBay is a morally incorrect way of doing things, then we have an issue bigger than this here.

Are copyright laws being broken? No! You know how I know? I can go into Best Buy and buy a game or movie. The company sold those DVDs to Best Buy knowing they'd sell them to me.

As long as you just flat out don't care that you've taken something that doesn't belong to you, no amount of me saying it is going to change you. Thieves always seem to be rational in their thought.

You can argue all day why it doesn't hurt them, but you can't tell me why it's your decision to make. You've done nothing in regards to this work at all. You didn't buy it or make it.

No one seems to be able to answer how these companies are going to make money if no one buys their product. Why would they make multi million dollar productions if no one is going to pay them?

[Rick James]

No one seems to be able to answer how these companies are going to make money if no one buys their product. Why would they make multi million dollar productions if no one is going to pay them?

The funny thing is that, despite piracy, people still seem quite willing to pay.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Let me ask you this one BL.  Most libraries have music they lend out just like books.  If I go to the library and borrow that music, listen to it, and return it does that hurt the artist?  So whats the difference if I download it, listen to it, and delete it?  

One is legal the other isn't but both result in me listening to music I did not purchase.

[Blue Lion]

No one seems to be able to answer how these companies are going to make money if no one buys their product. Why would they make multi million dollar productions if no one is going to pay them?

The funny things is that, despite piracy, people still seem quite willing to pay.

Because most people have a conscience. Are you saying that if these movies and songs and such were free people would still shell out money for them in the same amounts? Really?

Do you think those people pay because they dislike their money? They want to help out the movie industry? Do they go to the store and think "Man I could have this item for free with no consequence, but I want to help Fox stay in business."

I'm just flabbergasted that the wholesale theft of IP is ok because it doesn't hurt the company, but if I steal 1 car it's a huge no no. Can we steal physical products if it doesn't irreparably hurt the company?

[Blue Lion]

Let me ask you this one BL.  Most libraries have music they lend out just like books.  If I go to the library and borrow that music, listen to it, and return it does that hurt the artist?  So whats the difference if I download it, listen to it, and delete it?

What is with this strawman? I don't care if it hurts them. I don't care if they write a song or create a movie no one would pay a cent for. A work that was so awful the only way someone would watch it would be for free. If they don't want to give it away, you don't get to have it for free.

One is legal the other isn't but both result in me listening to music I did not purchase.

You just answered it. One is legal. Why are people arguing me on anything but a legal standpoint? All I've been saying is "It's illegal, stop doing it" No one seems to care.

[DarkBasilisk]

You guys keep pounding away that it doesn't hurt their business. It doesn't matter if it hurts their business or you make them a gazillion dollars. It's not your stuff to decide how it gets used.

First of all, if we were dealing with stealing something like a car, something that could not just be copied and pasted however many times you wanted, I'd agree with you. If I designed a car that with the press of a button could duplicate with no cost whatsoever, hell, I'd give the everyone in the world fourteen cars each.

The game owns the IP to the game, not each individual copy. Or do you honestly think they own each copy? Can they just waltz up to your door and demand that you hand back their game? No.

Giving a friend a copy of a game is less wrong than a mother giving her car to her son when she buys another one. Or do you think we should ban that, too?

If video game and music producer's policies were instituted everywhere in life, it'd be a felony to let someone borrow your car, a felony to have someone over for dinner and eat your food, a felony for public libraries to give out books (by the way, many do indeed have video games that you can check out for free), a felony to look at pictures of privately owned paintings...

Seriously. If you claim that you made the game, or if you start selling your copies, then the companies can whine and ***** all day long, but once again:

A) If it does not hurt the companies it is not wrong.
B) The companies don't own the DVDs you bought.
C) The biggest reason stealing is wrong is because you're denying other people's resources. This does not fall into that category thanks to copy and paste.

Now let's say it's actual piracy instead of giving friends a copy of the game you bought. What changes? Not a whole lot. The Pirate Bay was just like eBay except everything was free, and that when a transaction takes place, no one has to give their copy to someone else.

Now if you think eBay is a morally incorrect way of doing things, then we have an issue bigger than this here.

While I'm not so sure about saying give it back, if you read any standard Eula, it says they can terminate the agreement (at which you have to destroy all copies and such) if you go against it.

But this post is starting to get redundant. And with some of these comments I'm starting to really hope there's some trolls at work here.

Cliff-notes for people:

1) Whether piracy helps them or not doesn't matter: they own the legal rights to the work. They can do whatever they want with it. You can't. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your legislator. Otherwise they're well within their rights to act against piracy.

2) You don't have the right to get whatever you want for free (the mere suggestion of that annoys me nearly as much as the people who seem to think they have a constitutional right to not be offended).

[Rick James]

Because most people have a conscience. Are you saying that if these movies and songs and such were free people would still shell out money for them in the same amounts? Really?

Do you think those people pay because they dislike their money? They want to help out the movie industry? Do they go to the store and think "Man I could have this item for free with no consequence, but I want to help Fox stay in business."

I'm just flabbergasted that the wholesale theft of IP is ok because it doesn't hurt the company, but if I steal 1 car it's a huge no no. Can we steal physical products if it doesn't irreparably hurt the company?

Earlier I referenced five studies which say that file-sharing doesn't affect sales--or if they do, the end result is positive. People, pirates included, still seem to be buying original material despite the amount of content being downloaded.

Secondly, a car is not intellectual property. Stealing it is a crime which is of a provable, definable loss to the owner of the vehicle. Downloading "pirated" content does not constitute theft because there is no definable loss in terms of money and the hard data seems to show that it helps, rather than harms, the organizations that deride it so.

[Blue Lion]

Earlier I referenced five studies which say that file-sharing doesn't affect sales--or if they do, the end result is positive. People, pirates included, still seem to be buying original material despite the amount of content being downloaded.

The reason sales aren't affected is because large amounts of people are still doing the legal thing and buying the product.

If these products were free with no legal ramifications, why would people buy them?

Secondly, a car is not intellectual property. Stealing it is a crime which is of a provable, definable loss to the owner of the vehicle. Downloading "pirated" content does not constitute theft because there is no definable loss in terms of money and the hard data seems to show that it helps, rather than harms, the organizations that deride it so.

You can't define how much a movie costs? Really?

Even if I steal the car, drive it around and get them some advertising, tell all my friends to buy one. Write a kicking review about it? I wasn't going to buy it anyways so all my effort will obviously lead to a net gain or break even, right?

What if I wrote them a check for the cost of the material? Would that be cool? How much metal and plastic is in there? We'd be cool then, right? They didn't lose any material.

[The E]

Oh COME ON. I "pirate" stuff all the time. I also buy stuff all the time. Do I buy everything that I "pirate"? No. Because some of it is, frankly, crap. I don't buy crap. So, given that I can get all the stuff for free, why do I buy it?
Because 1) That's the only way the industry gets to know about my preferences. If I don't buy the stuff I like, chances are the stuff I like won't be produced anymore.
2) The artists I like get at least some money for their work, so that they can continue working.
3) Because I can get a few bits of additional content that way. In the case of movies, I get commentaries and making ofs. In the case of Music, maybe a bonus DVD with live performances or something like that.

I'm just flabbergasted that the wholesale theft of IP is ok because it doesn't hurt the company, but if I steal 1 car it's a huge no no. Can we steal physical products if it doesn't irreparably hurt the company?

Oh, but there is a difference. Stealing a car means stealing something that somebody else has bought, be it the owner of the car or the owner of a car dealership. The company that produced the car has been paid already, and aside from guarantee commitments, has nothing to do with the car anymore. If I "pirate" a copy of a movie, who exactly has been hurt? Where is the loss? The MAFIAA equates one downloaded copy with one (or more!) lost sales. In my case, the sale is only lost if I do not like what is being offered.
In other words, please show us the victims of the crime of "piracy". In hard statistics, please.

BTW, one thing you seem to ignore is that people seem to use "pirated" downloads as something like a free library. Yes, there are people who get all their stuff from the free library. But many use it like I do, as an opportunity to check if the stuff that I "borrow" is stuff that I want, and thus being worthy of my money.

You can't define how much a movie costs? Really?

Even if I steal the car, drive it around and get them some advertising, tell all my friends to buy one. Write a kicking review about it? I wasn't going to buy it anyways so all my effort will obviously lead to a net gain or break even, right?

What if I wrote them a check for the cost of the material? Would that be cool? How much metal and plastic is in there? We'd be cool then, right? They didn't lose any material.

The point your analogy is missing is that cars are rarely, if ever, stolen from the company that produced them.

[Rick James]

The reason sales aren't affected is because large amounts of people are still doing the legal thing and buying the product.

If these products were free with no legal ramifications, why would people buy them?

"Large amounts of people" include so-called pirates such as myself, who buy the things they download for whatever reason. In my case, it's because the source material tends to be better for whatever reason.

You can't define how much a movie costs? Really?

You're missing the point. I said that piracy does not constitute theft because there is no definable monetary loss, so the costs of making a movie or whatever else can be downloaded do not factor in the debate.

[Blue Lion]

Oh COME ON. I "pirate" stuff all the time. I also buy stuff all the time. Do I buy everything that I "pirate"? No. Because some of it is, frankly, crap. I don't buy crap. So, given that I can get all the stuff for free, why do I buy it?
Because 1) That's the only way the industry gets to know about my preferences. If I don't buy the stuff I like, chances are the stuff I like won't be produced anymore.
2) The artists I like get at least some money for their work, so that they can continue working.
3) Because I can get a few bits of additional content that way. In the case of movies, I get commentaries and making ofs. In the case of Music, maybe a bonus DVD with live performances or something like that.

I like how you sandwich "The artists don't go broke" in between "I can get more stuff!"

Oh, but there is a difference. Stealing a car means stealing something that somebody else has bought, be it the owner of the car or the owner of a car dealership. The company that produced the car has been paid already, and aside from guarantee commitments, has nothing to do with the car anymore. If I "pirate" a copy of a movie, who exactly has been hurt? Where is the loss? The MAFIAA equates one downloaded copy with one (or more!) lost sales. In my case, the sale is only lost if I do not like what is being offered.
In other words, please show us the victims of the crime of "piracy". In hard statistics, please.

You want to know the names of the companies you're stealing from? The victims are "owners of the works".

That's it. There is no flash. No song and dance number. They own it, you took it.

If I steal a car from a dealership and take it on a wild chase and they get extra publicity and earn more money than if I hadn't taken it, is it still theft even though they earned a profit? I'm just curious what the profit ratio is that makes it ok to take things.

BTW, one thing you seem to ignore is that people seem to use "pirated" downloads as something like a free library. Yes, there are people who get all their stuff from the free library. But many use it like I do, as an opportunity to check if the stuff that I "borrow" is stuff that I want, and thus being worthy of my money.

These statements make no sense. I see that they are words, but the connections don't add up for me.

I ignore what people seem to do? If they wanted you to be able to test it out for free, they'd show it for free in it's entirety. Poor business model? Maybe. If you guys are so intent on changing how they do business, why don't you just boycott them until they do? Oh wait, you'd have to give up the stuff. My bad.

The point your analogy is missing is that cars are rarely, if ever, stolen from the company that produced them.

So if I steal it from the guys who produce it, it's ok?

[Blue Lion]

"Large amounts of people" include so-called pirates such as myself, who buy the things they download for whatever reason. In my case, it's because the source material tends to be better for whatever reason.

Yes pirated material. But if the works were free as you seem to think they should be, why would people buy them?

These companies go "You win, we can't stop people from taking our works, we're going to give them out for free" Where does the money come from then?


I know you don't mean to think other people should pay full price for works to prop up a companies profits while you steal works. That would just make you a jerk.

You're missing the point. I said that piracy does not constitute theft because there is no definable monetary loss, so the costs of making a movie or whatever else can be downloaded do not factor in the debate.

So the DVDs I buy from Best Buy with the movies on them cost 20 dollars? That's all physical costs for the packaging and DVD itself?

[Rick James]

Yes pirated material. But if the works were free as you seem to think they should be, why would people buy them?

These companies go "You win, we can't stop people from taking our works, we're going to give them out for free" Where does the money come from then?

I know you don't mean to think other people should pay full price for works to prop up a companies profits while you steal works. That would just make you a jerk.

Mmm, delicious flamebait.

The "why" varies from one individual to another; I buy the material I download because the source is always better. The point is that stuff is still being bought at a greater rate than ever before, and the pirates are some of the biggest customers. If downloading equaled theft, if every copy distributed via the internet constituted a lost sale, all the big publishers and producers would have gone out of business a long time ago. If "illegal" downloading suddenly disappeared tomorrow, sales of movies, CDs, and games wouldn't deviate from current trends one iota, because the alleged loss incurred by downloading is statistically zero.

[The E]

I like how you sandwich "The artists don't go broke" in between "I can get more stuff!"

Is that wrong? After all, isn't that what this industry thing is all about? Getting stuff people will buy to the people who will buy it?

You want to know the names of the companies you're stealing from? The victims are "owners of the works".

That's it. There is no flash. No song and dance number. They own it, you took it.

There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the number of downloads and the number of sales. And why should I be interested in supporting people who produce stuff that I don't like?

If I steal a car from a dealership and take it on a wild chase and they get extra publicity and earn more money than if I hadn't taken it, is it still theft even though they earned a profit? I'm just curious what the profit ratio is that makes it ok to take things.

Of course it's theft. However, can you define the exact amount of damage a downloaded song or movie represents? It's easy to do this with a car, since cars are usually not reproduced by the person stealing it.

BTW, one thing you seem to ignore is that people seem to use "pirated" downloads as something like a free library. Yes, there are people who get all their stuff from the free library. But many use it like I do, as an opportunity to check if the stuff that I "borrow" is stuff that I want, and thus being worthy of my money.

These statements make no sense. I see that they are words, but the connections don't add up for me.

I ignore what people seem to do? If they wanted you to be able to test it out for free, they'd show it for free in it's entirety. Poor business model? Maybe. If you guys are so intent on changing how they do business, why don't you just boycott them until they do? Oh wait, you'd have to give up the stuff. My bad.

The Industry is grown up, you know. It can defend itself.  (Unfortunately, it seems to think that bullying, trolling and sticking its fingers in its ears while screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" are legitimate tactics).
And as someone who likes to be an informed customer, I like to test stuff before I buy it. If the industry doesn't give me the opportunity to do so, is that my problem?

The point your analogy is missing is that cars are rarely, if ever, stolen from the company that produced them.

So if I steal it from the guys who produce it, it's ok?

No. It's just a bad analogy. This whole thing is, IMHO, not about stealing, it's about copying.

[Blue Lion]

Mmm, delicious flamebait.

The "why" varies from one individual to another; I buy the material I download because the source is always better. The point is that stuff is still being bought at a greater rate than ever before, and the pirates are some of the biggest customers. If downloading equaled theft, if every copy distributed via the internet constituted a lost sale, all the big publishers and producers would have gone out of business a long time ago.

You're pushing the piracy by saying it's promoting the sales of these things and then using that as a justification for it being free.

If you argue that you're helping their profits, you're saying that these are things that are being sold. Things that shouldn't be free. Why are you helping them earn profits by selling things you think should be free?

Should the work be free for me to have or not free for me to have. You went from saying art should be free and taking intellectual property isn't theft to being a guy helping these companies make massive amounts of money by selling intellectual property.

Which is it?

Should movies and songs and such be free for everyone or are they the right of the owners to sell for a profit?

[Rick James]

You're pushing the piracy by saying it's promoting the sales of these things and then using that as a justification for it being free.

If you argue that you're helping their profits, you're saying that these are things that are being sold. Things that shouldn't be free. Why are you helping them earn profits by selling things you think should be free?

Woah, hold up. Where did I say that I was selling the stuff that I downloaded? I have never made money in such a way.

Should the work be free for me to have or not free for me to have. You went from saying art should be free and taking intellectual property isn't theft to being a guy helping these companies make massive amounts of money by selling intellectual property.

Which is it?

Should movies and songs and such be free for everyone or are they the right of the owners to sell for a profit?

Uh, again, I never said I was selling the things I downloaded. As for the issue of whether such content should or should not be free, I guess what I've been trying to say is that I don't see any reason why it can't be both. I download content that I like and pay for it, therefore providing incentive to create new content.

[Blue Lion]

Is that wrong? After all, isn't that what this industry thing is all about? Getting stuff people will buy to the people who will buy it?

No, I just like how it highlights how you're really only concerned with what you get out of it. Not any real adherence to the law.

There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the number of downloads and the number of sales. And why should I be interested in supporting people who produce stuff that I don't like?

Because you're taking stuff from people you do like.

Did they tell you that you could download their stuff for free? I daresay they would say the opposite. If you like them so much, why aren't you heeding their pleas?

Of course it's theft. However, can you define the exact amount of damage a downloaded song or movie represents? It's easy to do this with a car, since cars are usually not reproduced by the person stealing it.

Yes, it's called "the amount they were going to sell it for".

The Industry is grown up, you know. It can defend itself.  (Unfortunately, it seems to think that bullying, trolling and sticking its fingers in its ears while screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" are legitimate tactics).
And as someone who likes to be an informed customer, I like to test stuff before I buy it. If the industry doesn't give me the opportunity to do so, is that my problem?

Yes, they are grown up. You just said they are big boys but somehow you don't feel the need to follow the rules.

You don't see the fun in claiming that they are basically acting like kids but you're going "I don't like that rule, so I'm not gonna follow it!"