> Yes it's "free" to make a digital copy, but that ignores the cost of producing content.
I am not ignoring the cost, I am simply not respecting it.
They are trying to run a business; the costs of doing so are their problem.
If they cannot capture revenue to offset the mentioned costs, then they do not have a viable business.
Currently, copyright law is required for the revenue to be captured, thus the business is not viable.
It is unfortunate, but I don't see how I am mistaken (I can understand disagreement that copyright law is broken, but it would be disagreement).
Please don't condescend.
> Yes it's "free" to make a digital copy, but that ignores the cost of producing content.
I am not ignoring the cost, I am simply not respecting it. They are trying to run a business; the costs of doing so are their problem. If they cannot capture revenue to offset the mentioned costs, then they do not have a viable business. Currently, copyright law is required for the revenue to be captured, thus the business is not viable.
It is unfortunate, but I don't see how I am mistaken (I can understand disagreement that copyright law is broken, but it would be disagreement).