Not according to the legal definition of "distribution". You may not like NYCL or agree what he says, but he's posting facts based on law, and you're posting what you pull out of your posterior.
The distribution right in 17 USC 106(3) requires: -that it be by a sale, or other transfer of ownership, or by a rental, lease, or lending, AND -that it be to the public.
And that's all that's needed. As long as it's more convenient and not overly expensive to acquire a copy legitimately, most people will do that. I think it's fair to assume that a very small percentage of music fans (probably less than 1%) would consider it worthwhile for them to use the method you describe, even were free downloads not readily available.
Also, in reality you'll find that in many cases all the radio stations will cut out the same portions of the same songs, precisely to defeat the method you describe. In fact, I've noticed that most of the time they cut off a small bit both at the beginning and the end, so no matter what you do you can't get a full track from them.
And then there's always the fact that radio is lower quality audio than even a 128-bit CD rip.
So then we don't know for sure whether or not he is a paid shill, but we have further evidence he's a pure troll.
Also, thanks for clearing up those other points.
And since I seemingly have your attention for a bit, let me just say you've garnered a lot of respect from me already. You've shown yourself (IMHO) to be an individual of integrity and honesty, and for that I commend you. We as consumers and artists both need the kind of efforts people like yourself are doing to bring down (or clean up) greedy corporations like the RIAA that prey on the weak.
If you have read through the whole thread up to the time of your post here and still failed to see how Theaetetus is trolling and NYCL is merely calling him out on it, then all I can really say is I feel sorry for you. You must get trolled a lot, because it's not even that subtle here any more.
Additionally, here are a few more things I've observed, and my impressions of reading between the lines on them.
Fact 1. Theaetetus claims to have personally contacted NYCL in private, prior to all this, and at that time revealing his true identity, amongst other things.
Fact 2. By all appearances, NYCL freely admits who he actually is on these forums, and allows us all to see what his intentions are. He has also never given reason to doubt his honesty. He states his positions, and when people twist them around and put words in his mouth, he sets them straight.
Fact 3. Theaetetus, while claiming to have revealed his identity to NYCL, does none of that on the forums here. We have no clue who he may actually be. For all we know, he actually *could* be a genuine shill, paid by the RIAA.
Based on these facts, here are my impressions:
NYCL is actually being generous by not revealing Theatetus's true identity here, and trying to forewarn us as honestly and politely as possible, in letting us know who the troll is. He knows who Theatetus actually is (in Theaetetus' own words) so he should know whether or not he's actually a troll. Furthermore, Theaetetus doesn't even bother to deny that he's a troll or a shill, and tries to deflect it by name-calling against NYCL. (A coward? Really? Need I say more?)
Than we agree. Thanks, it's good to know I have a friend out there.
Maybe, maybe not. You didn't quote even that entire sentence, specifically leaving off the emphasized part that validates the rest.
Everything else you said was assumption, but I'll let that slide.
Wrong. I made a few assumptions about you (valid or not, I couldn't care less), but everything else I posted was pointing out YOUR invalid assumptions.
You're trying to sound all reasonable and rational now that you have been called out, but as that is a common tactic of trolls, I don't buy it. Nevertheless, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and leave you as "ignorant and misguided" rather than outright naming you troll.
All seeders are liable, but only for the actual copies they upload. They can't all be liable for destroying the exclusivity of distribution value because any damages there happen the instant the first original seed is made available.
Ergo, in Tenenbaum's case, the *ONLY* damages they can justly claim are for the copies he downloaded, and any copies they can prove he uploaded to other consumers.
He didn't. He admitted to uploading to at least one person, which is entirely different from the legal definition of "distribution" as NYCL has pointed out. And also as NYCL pointed out, even if he *had* admitted to "distributing" that doesn't mean he's guilty of "distribution" under the legal definition.
Especially given the fact that others are willing - no, begging - to be allowed to be a distribution channel these days. Take iTunes for example. All they have to do is provide them with a license and a master copy. No maintenance costs, no bandwidth costs, no electricity costs, nothing at all. They literally have to invest a few dollars at most for each song they allow iTunes to sell. Meanwhile, they sit back and claim $.70 for every copy of every song that sells. I don't know how much of that goes to the artist, but it's not much.
They don't actually have to worry about advertising or marketing either - between radio stations, bloggers, other fans, word-of-mouth, etc. it's pretty much guaranteed that their product will sell. They don't need to worry about hiring new artists - there's a list of musicians at least a mile long (literally) that would consider it the best thing in the world to be hired on by an RIAA label. Their business has literally grown to the point where they can sit back and do nothing but the paperwork.
Responding multiple times doesn't make what you say any less worthless, false, and complete bullshit.
So if you refuse to pay for the creation of that music you enjoy, how much longer do you think there's going to be music to listen to?
Wow. What a patently stupid thing to say. As long as there are people, and as long as they have the capability to make music, there will be music for us to listen to.
Furthermore, the fact that you think artists are somehow obligated to give you that enjoyment for free is sickening.
He didn't say anything about the artists being obligated for anything.
You are in fact depriving them of just reward for the years of hard work it took to create that art, as well as re-reimbursement for the money they spent to create the recording.
The GP didn't say anything about how this might affect the artist. His whole post has nothing to do with the artist at all.
Attempting to disguise your theft with semantics only makes you appear less intelligent.
Fortunately, you don't even attempt to disguise your complete lack of intelligence and inability to debate.
It's pretty clear at this point that you're a struggling artist, who is unable to make any money from his work. Given the hugely extremely overabundant number of musicians out there these days, I can't say I'm really surprised, and I can't say I have much sympathy for you. Don't go peddling a product for which the supply so far exceeds the demand, and then cry when you can't make money off it if you want anyone to side with you.
Oh, and copyright infringement will never be theft, no matter how much you (and others) want to claim it to be. That's why there's such a thing as "copyright infringement", and why there are special punishments and/or damages assessed when it occurs. Because it's NOT a theft, and therefore laws about theft do not apply.
Furthermore, artists aren't entitled to jack shit for anything they do, no matter how long it took and how much work they put into it. They deserve to be recompensed for their work, the same way anyone else does for any more tangible work, and with similar amounts of money for similar amounts of effort, for similar quality of product with similar demand. If you're an artist making more crappy music that no one cares about, you shouldn't expect good money for it any more than I should if I go out on the street and try to sell a bucketful of dirt from my back yard.
I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond to this crap. This particular rabbit trail was about looters, not legitimate visitors.
Or do you seriously want to make the claim here that legitimate purchasers of a given music track are diminishing the value of it simply by purchasing it and copying it to their MP3 player? I suppose you are, as you're most likely nothing more than an RIAA shill and a troll.
And that's it for me on this particular off-topic rabbit trail. It has already far outlived its use.
That said, your stupid analogy of flash on the mona lisa has zero to do with the rest of the discussion, because (as you so nicely pointed out) any single flash photograph has a non-neutral effect (however insignificant it may be) on the original item. Meanwhile, every single illegal download of a copyrighted work beyond the first DOES have a neutral effect on the actual value of the original IP.
In fact, it can even be argued that even the first illegal download doesn't really affect the actual value of the original IP, as only an idiot or a hermit living in a cave for the last hundred years would fail to assume that their work will most likely be available for free within hours of initial release, if not before. Or in other words, something cannot lose a value it has never had to begin with. The real value of copyright then is the same at is has ever been: only as much as the public is willing to grant the copyright holder.
The brief specifically agrees that Tannenbaum DISTRIBUTED the works
My recollection of my full read-through of the brief and another quick perusal says you're dead wrong. In every case I see where they discuss "distribution" they either claim it as unfounded hyperbole or deflect it onto the original seeder.
[It also says that no damage was caused by Tannenbaum's sharing of the songs (page 1, "whatever damage was caused, was caused by the initial seeders") using the dodgy argument that an act isn't a crime if things would have turned out the same anyway.]
You're taking what they said out of context and twisting it around. They're not arguing that there was no wrong-doing (it's not a crime in any case, this is a civil matter not criminal) they're arguing that the damages being assessed are incorrect. What you claim is a "dodgy" argument is that there are no damages (from sharing) if all the other people who illegally acquired it would have done so just as readily whether he shared his Kazaa folder or not. And in this, they are quite correct. They are not trying to deny the damages caused by his illegal method of acquiring said works, and by extension wrong-doing on his part.
He said effectively, "I, Andrew Tenenbaum, distributed at least one complete copy without authorization."
Citation needed.
As you've already revealed yourself to be a true troll, I found I have to call that in question. A quick google search reveals exactly one search result for that statement: in your post.
So, you're basing this whole thread of argument on your assertion that he claims to have "distributed" while under oath, when a.) as NYCL pointed out, that means nothing as to the legal definition of the word, and now b.) he apparently didn't even use the word "distributed" in the first place.
According to ARS Technica, here is what he DID say:
"This is me. I'm here to answer," said Tenenbaum. "I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it," he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs' attorney Tim Reynolds.
"Yes," said Tenenbaum.
And (questions being asked by Tim Reynolds):
"You used KaZaA to download music, right?"
"You used LimeWire to get music without paying for it, right?"
"Your goal was to obtain the maximum amount of music with the minimum amount of wasted effort, right?"
"Yes." "I did." "Yes, I did," Tenenbaum said calmly, over and over and over, in response to Reynolds' questions.
NOTHING about "distribution" at all. So if he actually did use that term, as you claim, please provide proof. Or consider yourself fully ousted as nothing more than a poor troll, and possibly a shill as well, exactly as NYCL has named you.
One flash doesn't do *much* damage. A hundred thousand over the course of a year will ruin it. We're talking filesharing and torrents here, not an individual passing a single file to a buddy.
Right, because it's going to be photographed with flash photography by a hundred thousand looters in a year.
And should I even comment on the, "Seriously, did you even *think* before you posted that?" ?
Probably not, because my misreading one of your posts doesn't change the clear lack of thought in any of them, including your latest one here.
The first basic argument is that the companies lost nothing because even if Tenenbaum had not shared the music then someone else would have. However, the companies lose sales to illegal downloading. There's a question of how many sales, but no question that there are lost sales. So they suffer loss from one person making downloads available. If only one person made the files available, they could recover their losses by suing that person. Defendant's argument is that because many people do it, the companies cannot recover. That's like saying that if you get beaten up then you can sue your attacker, but if you get lynched by a mob then you have no recourse. The fact that many people are doing it... you know, if you have to read that here to learn it, you can't learn it. Let's move on to the next point.
No. The first basic argument is essentially that because Tenenbaum is not the original seeder, the works would still have been just as available whether he had shared his music folders personally or not. The "many other people are doing it" part plays off that. Here is the portion of the brief pertaining to it:
But, the plaintiffs say, by including these songs in his share folder, Tenenbaum distributed them to millions of people, causing the record comapnies "incalculable" damages. This is completely false hyperbole. Not a single person who downloaded these songs using Kazaa would have been impeded from obtaining them had Tenenbaum blocked acess to his share folder. Tenenbaum was not a seeder of any of these songs. Whatever damage was caused by distribution of these thirty immensely popular songs on the peer-to-peer networks was caused by the initial seeders.
Tenenbaum is the defendant, not the lawyer. It's probably safe to assume that he didn't do much (or any) of the work, and therefore didn't do an "excellent job". But I agree, the brief is well worth reading.
Actually, looking over the write-up on ARS Technica it's clear that he is being accused (and has been from the start) of "downloading and re-uploading". So it's quite clear he's not the original infringer. I'm not sure why you keep trying to cast this into doubt.
No, technically the lost value of the distribution rights would be solely on the original perpetrator who took a legal copy and made more copies illegally available for distribution. That is when the actual loss of value in the distribution rights occurs - once it's available for free, it's available for free, and as far as the technical distribution value is concerned, that doesn't change whether you have one seed or one billion.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the button-clicking probably won't be purely "random" for most of them. Although, their "logic" for which they click probably may as well be.
I'm guessing Opera will actually gain some marketshare because of this.
I can't imagine anyone not liking me. At least anyone who doesn't know me.
In retrospect, that does seem pretty far-fetched. ;-)
Not according to the legal definition of "distribution". You may not like NYCL or agree what he says, but he's posting facts based on law, and you're posting what you pull out of your posterior.
The distribution right in 17 USC 106(3) requires:
-that it be by a sale, or other transfer of ownership, or by a rental, lease, or lending, AND
-that it be to the public.
Since I'm not sure if my HTML coding is getting the hyperlink to work in the quote or not, I'll repost it here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html
And that's all that's needed. As long as it's more convenient and not overly expensive to acquire a copy legitimately, most people will do that. I think it's fair to assume that a very small percentage of music fans (probably less than 1%) would consider it worthwhile for them to use the method you describe, even were free downloads not readily available.
Also, in reality you'll find that in many cases all the radio stations will cut out the same portions of the same songs, precisely to defeat the method you describe. In fact, I've noticed that most of the time they cut off a small bit both at the beginning and the end, so no matter what you do you can't get a full track from them.
And then there's always the fact that radio is lower quality audio than even a 128-bit CD rip.
So then we don't know for sure whether or not he is a paid shill, but we have further evidence he's a pure troll.
Also, thanks for clearing up those other points.
And since I seemingly have your attention for a bit, let me just say you've garnered a lot of respect from me already. You've shown yourself (IMHO) to be an individual of integrity and honesty, and for that I commend you. We as consumers and artists both need the kind of efforts people like yourself are doing to bring down (or clean up) greedy corporations like the RIAA that prey on the weak.
I only wish you were right.
Then, someone like Joel Tenenbaum could be fined $280 at small claims court and sent home, case dismissed.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
If you have read through the whole thread up to the time of your post here and still failed to see how Theaetetus is trolling and NYCL is merely calling him out on it, then all I can really say is I feel sorry for you. You must get trolled a lot, because it's not even that subtle here any more.
Additionally, here are a few more things I've observed, and my impressions of reading between the lines on them.
Fact 1. Theaetetus claims to have personally contacted NYCL in private, prior to all this, and at that time revealing his true identity, amongst other things.
Fact 2. By all appearances, NYCL freely admits who he actually is on these forums, and allows us all to see what his intentions are. He has also never given reason to doubt his honesty. He states his positions, and when people twist them around and put words in his mouth, he sets them straight.
Fact 3. Theaetetus, while claiming to have revealed his identity to NYCL, does none of that on the forums here. We have no clue who he may actually be. For all we know, he actually *could* be a genuine shill, paid by the RIAA.
Based on these facts, here are my impressions:
NYCL is actually being generous by not revealing Theatetus's true identity here, and trying to forewarn us as honestly and politely as possible, in letting us know who the troll is. He knows who Theatetus actually is (in Theaetetus' own words) so he should know whether or not he's actually a troll. Furthermore, Theaetetus doesn't even bother to deny that he's a troll or a shill, and tries to deflect it by name-calling against NYCL. (A coward? Really? Need I say more?)
Than we agree. Thanks, it's good to know I have a friend out there.
Maybe, maybe not. You didn't quote even that entire sentence, specifically leaving off the emphasized part that validates the rest.
Everything else you said was assumption, but I'll let that slide.
Wrong. I made a few assumptions about you (valid or not, I couldn't care less), but everything else I posted was pointing out YOUR invalid assumptions.
You're trying to sound all reasonable and rational now that you have been called out, but as that is a common tactic of trolls, I don't buy it. Nevertheless, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and leave you as "ignorant and misguided" rather than outright naming you troll.
All seeders are liable, but only for the actual copies they upload. They can't all be liable for destroying the exclusivity of distribution value because any damages there happen the instant the first original seed is made available.
Ergo, in Tenenbaum's case, the *ONLY* damages they can justly claim are for the copies he downloaded, and any copies they can prove he uploaded to other consumers.
He didn't. He admitted to uploading to at least one person, which is entirely different from the legal definition of "distribution" as NYCL has pointed out. And also as NYCL pointed out, even if he *had* admitted to "distributing" that doesn't mean he's guilty of "distribution" under the legal definition.
Especially given the fact that others are willing - no, begging - to be allowed to be a distribution channel these days. Take iTunes for example. All they have to do is provide them with a license and a master copy. No maintenance costs, no bandwidth costs, no electricity costs, nothing at all. They literally have to invest a few dollars at most for each song they allow iTunes to sell. Meanwhile, they sit back and claim $.70 for every copy of every song that sells. I don't know how much of that goes to the artist, but it's not much.
They don't actually have to worry about advertising or marketing either - between radio stations, bloggers, other fans, word-of-mouth, etc. it's pretty much guaranteed that their product will sell. They don't need to worry about hiring new artists - there's a list of musicians at least a mile long (literally) that would consider it the best thing in the world to be hired on by an RIAA label. Their business has literally grown to the point where they can sit back and do nothing but the paperwork.
Most industries would KILL for that kind of ROI.
Responding multiple times doesn't make what you say any less worthless, false, and complete bullshit.
So if you refuse to pay for the creation of that music you enjoy, how much longer do you think there's going to be music to listen to?
Wow. What a patently stupid thing to say. As long as there are people, and as long as they have the capability to make music, there will be music for us to listen to.
Furthermore, the fact that you think artists are somehow obligated to give you that enjoyment for free is sickening.
He didn't say anything about the artists being obligated for anything.
You are in fact depriving them of just reward for the years of hard work it took to create that art, as well as re-reimbursement for the money they spent to create the recording.
The GP didn't say anything about how this might affect the artist. His whole post has nothing to do with the artist at all.
Attempting to disguise your theft with semantics only makes you appear less intelligent.
Fortunately, you don't even attempt to disguise your complete lack of intelligence and inability to debate.
It's pretty clear at this point that you're a struggling artist, who is unable to make any money from his work. Given the hugely extremely overabundant number of musicians out there these days, I can't say I'm really surprised, and I can't say I have much sympathy for you. Don't go peddling a product for which the supply so far exceeds the demand, and then cry when you can't make money off it if you want anyone to side with you.
Oh, and copyright infringement will never be theft, no matter how much you (and others) want to claim it to be. That's why there's such a thing as "copyright infringement", and why there are special punishments and/or damages assessed when it occurs. Because it's NOT a theft, and therefore laws about theft do not apply.
Furthermore, artists aren't entitled to jack shit for anything they do, no matter how long it took and how much work they put into it. They deserve to be recompensed for their work, the same way anyone else does for any more tangible work, and with similar amounts of money for similar amounts of effort, for similar quality of product with similar demand. If you're an artist making more crappy music that no one cares about, you shouldn't expect good money for it any more than I should if I go out on the street and try to sell a bucketful of dirt from my back yard.
Not according to the legal definition of "distribution", apparently.
This is why I haven't bought MW2 and never will. Yes, I purchased MW and used to play it online.
I went to their site once.
You're talking about transferring. He was talking about copying.
Goodbye, troll.
I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond to this crap. This particular rabbit trail was about looters, not legitimate visitors.
Or do you seriously want to make the claim here that legitimate purchasers of a given music track are diminishing the value of it simply by purchasing it and copying it to their MP3 player? I suppose you are, as you're most likely nothing more than an RIAA shill and a troll.
And that's it for me on this particular off-topic rabbit trail. It has already far outlived its use.
That said, your stupid analogy of flash on the mona lisa has zero to do with the rest of the discussion, because (as you so nicely pointed out) any single flash photograph has a non-neutral effect (however insignificant it may be) on the original item. Meanwhile, every single illegal download of a copyrighted work beyond the first DOES have a neutral effect on the actual value of the original IP.
In fact, it can even be argued that even the first illegal download doesn't really affect the actual value of the original IP, as only an idiot or a hermit living in a cave for the last hundred years would fail to assume that their work will most likely be available for free within hours of initial release, if not before. Or in other words, something cannot lose a value it has never had to begin with. The real value of copyright then is the same at is has ever been: only as much as the public is willing to grant the copyright holder.
The brief specifically agrees that Tannenbaum DISTRIBUTED the works
My recollection of my full read-through of the brief and another quick perusal says you're dead wrong. In every case I see where they discuss "distribution" they either claim it as unfounded hyperbole or deflect it onto the original seeder.
[It also says that no damage was caused by Tannenbaum's sharing of the songs (page 1, "whatever damage was caused, was caused by the initial seeders") using the dodgy argument that an act isn't a crime if things would have turned out the same anyway.]
You're taking what they said out of context and twisting it around. They're not arguing that there was no wrong-doing (it's not a crime in any case, this is a civil matter not criminal) they're arguing that the damages being assessed are incorrect. What you claim is a "dodgy" argument is that there are no damages (from sharing) if all the other people who illegally acquired it would have done so just as readily whether he shared his Kazaa folder or not. And in this, they are quite correct. They are not trying to deny the damages caused by his illegal method of acquiring said works, and by extension wrong-doing on his part.
He said effectively, "I, Andrew Tenenbaum, distributed at least one complete copy without authorization."
Citation needed.
As you've already revealed yourself to be a true troll, I found I have to call that in question. A quick google search reveals exactly one search result for that statement: in your post.
So, you're basing this whole thread of argument on your assertion that he claims to have "distributed" while under oath, when a.) as NYCL pointed out, that means nothing as to the legal definition of the word, and now b.) he apparently didn't even use the word "distributed" in the first place.
According to ARS Technica, here is what he DID say:
"This is me. I'm here to answer," said Tenenbaum. "I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it," he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs' attorney Tim Reynolds.
"Yes," said Tenenbaum.
And (questions being asked by Tim Reynolds):
"You used KaZaA to download music, right?"
"You used LimeWire to get music without paying for it, right?"
"Your goal was to obtain the maximum amount of music with the minimum amount of wasted effort, right?"
"Yes." "I did." "Yes, I did," Tenenbaum said calmly, over and over and over, in response to Reynolds' questions.
NOTHING about "distribution" at all. So if he actually did use that term, as you claim, please provide proof. Or consider yourself fully ousted as nothing more than a poor troll, and possibly a shill as well, exactly as NYCL has named you.
Oh, come on. That's not a truncation. That's your exact sentence, fully intact, incorporating your period.
That's why he said you truncated his statement, not sentence. It's now quite clear that he's been right all along - you're nothing more than a troll.
One flash doesn't do *much* damage. A hundred thousand over the course of a year will ruin it. We're talking filesharing and torrents here, not an individual passing a single file to a buddy.
Right, because it's going to be photographed with flash photography by a hundred thousand looters in a year.
And should I even comment on the, "Seriously, did you even *think* before you posted that?" ?
Probably not, because my misreading one of your posts doesn't change the clear lack of thought in any of them, including your latest one here.
The first basic argument is that the companies lost nothing because even if Tenenbaum had not shared the music then someone else would have. However, the companies lose sales to illegal downloading. There's a question of how many sales, but no question that there are lost sales. So they suffer loss from one person making downloads available. If only one person made the files available, they could recover their losses by suing that person. Defendant's argument is that because many people do it, the companies cannot recover. That's like saying that if you get beaten up then you can sue your attacker, but if you get lynched by a mob then you have no recourse. The fact that many people are doing it... you know, if you have to read that here to learn it, you can't learn it. Let's move on to the next point.
No. The first basic argument is essentially that because Tenenbaum is not the original seeder, the works would still have been just as available whether he had shared his music folders personally or not. The "many other people are doing it" part plays off that. Here is the portion of the brief pertaining to it:
But, the plaintiffs say, by including these songs in his share folder, Tenenbaum distributed them to millions of people, causing the record comapnies "incalculable" damages. This is completely false hyperbole. Not a single person who downloaded these songs using Kazaa would have been impeded from obtaining them had Tenenbaum blocked acess to his share folder. Tenenbaum was not a seeder of any of these songs. Whatever damage was caused by distribution of these thirty immensely popular songs on the peer-to-peer networks was caused by the initial seeders.
Tenenbaum is the defendant, not the lawyer. It's probably safe to assume that he didn't do much (or any) of the work, and therefore didn't do an "excellent job". But I agree, the brief is well worth reading.
Actually, looking over the write-up on ARS Technica it's clear that he is being accused (and has been from the start) of "downloading and re-uploading". So it's quite clear he's not the original infringer. I'm not sure why you keep trying to cast this into doubt.
No, technically the lost value of the distribution rights would be solely on the original perpetrator who took a legal copy and made more copies illegally available for distribution. That is when the actual loss of value in the distribution rights occurs - once it's available for free, it's available for free, and as far as the technical distribution value is concerned, that doesn't change whether you have one seed or one billion.