"Now that is simply not true. Most everyone I know still uses dvds or blueray to watch movies. "

Well, that certainly may true for you, but not true for many people including myself. With the availability of cheap storage and proliferation of other playback devices such as appletv, Ipad, Iphones, Android devices, etc many of us have stopped taking up shelf space with DVD cases and have just burned everything to their hard drives for play back on whatever device they want. I sometimes play my magic DVD's back on my Appletv or my IPad, almost never on an actually DVD player. As far as I am concerned, if I bought the media, I'll play it back in any form I choose. A DVD is just digits on a disk. I have no problem moving those digits to somewhere else where they don't take up shelf space and allow for viewing on multiple devices. I think this is case where the laws are behind the technology. In any case, whether most everyone you know still uses actual disks to play back, I can assure you that many people don't, people who have no intention of keeping copies so they can resell the DVD. And it will get more so. DVD's and CD's are old technology, Streaming and downloading and media centers (ie. big hard drives where all your media is stored) is the current and future way of doing things.

Here is an interesting and ironic part to this.

The guy is doing this to get back some of the cost of the product. OK great, so now the creator gets sort of boned in the equation when this happens and does not make as much as he might anticipate. His next product will be more expensive. ONE reason that products cost so much (Which seems to be the problem the guy the OP is speaking of has.) is this EXACT sort of behavior.

In the end when enough people start to do this sort of thing creators stop creating. Most guys doing magic for sale do not make any real money. That is the sad part. Sure there are exceptions to the rule like any rule, but most do not change their tax brackets significantly!

This is why the silly moral justifications about it and all the technically correct stuff to run through to justify the behavior is so pointless. In the end it will result in higher costs of products.

I am fortunate. Magic is not a hobby for me. It is a profession. One I enjoy tremendously. But I do not buy new products. Last thing I actually bought that wasn't a deck of cards was almost 10 years ago. Magic shops and creators would absolutely starve if it was guys like me purchasing. I am glad there are guys who love new things, and love new books and all the stuff that is provided. It is good for the art the constant creation. BUT it is VERY bad for the art when things like this happen. Give it all the technical and moral justification you like, it is not helpful to the art in the least. If it lowers profit margins enough the creative guys take their ball and go home. It is as simple as that.

Whether it is morally wrong, or legally wrong or what not is not the bigger issue I see. Bottom line is the behavior raises prices on products, and that is the EXACT issue that the guy in the OP seems to think he is solving. Some might call that ironic.

I differ with you on a lot of what you said. Let me get this right, you think that reselling magic dvd's is morally wrong because you think it will cause the creators/producers of the dvd to raise their costs to cover the loses acquired by those who resell dvd's? You believe that it might also stop the producers from creating more dvd's? Well, it's been going on for years and magicians are still making dvd's, and companies are still producing them. I'm not sure where you base your information on but it's not factual at all through evidence of the last past 15 years that I know of. It hasn't happened yet is what I am getting at.

Plus, it's the same old arguement/threat I remember going on 15 years ago.

"The guy is doing this to get back some of the cost of the product. OK great, so now the creator gets sort of boned in the equation when this happens and does not make as much as he might anticipate. His next product will be more expensive. ONE reason that products cost so much (Which seems to be the problem the guy the OP is speaking of has.) is this EXACT sort of behavior."

Can you give an example from the last 10-15 years that supports this theory? I believe the producers of the dvd don't loose a dime because the person who bought a pre-owned dvd at a discount did so more than likely because they had no intentions of buying a new one.

The guy resells it in order to recoup cost. What about that is confusing to you?

People complain about insurance costs then cheat the insurance companies driving up costs. This is little different.

Differ all you like. It comes to justification on your part and nothing more.

DannyDoyle, Wouldn't your theory be the same whether or not someone made a copy for their own use? In otherwords, what is the difference (as far as your "increased costs" argument goes) between the guy who just sells a used DVD and the guy who sells a used DVD but has a copy on their hard drive? Aren't they same. Don't they both rob the creator of a sale?

so is your position that ANY USED DVD sale is bad and increases costs? I guess I'm missing where the "keeping a copy" portion of your argument comes into play. It would seem that just selling used DVD's period would cause the same problem. Are you then against any sale of a used DVD regardless of whether the seller has a copy or no?

Danny, but you yourself said that reselling the dvd's takes away from the producers. What's the difference if one just resells it, and a person who backs it up on his computer then resells it? In both cases the DVD is being resold, hence your theory would have to apply to both cases.

I personally fail to see any supporting evidence of your claims. Nothing is confusing me. Just clarifying that you are against all reselling of dvd's and that your issue from your arguement is the financial loss it is to the producers and makers of magic dvd's.

I've not stated my moral position on this issue, although I do have one. But, I believe it's unimportant to the points I raised.

Sorry, Danny but your UK info is out of date. the previous link I gave notes a change in law between the date of your linked article and mine. It may well be illegal to back-up DVDs in the UK now.

Thanks for the update.

Oops.

There is a difference here and it comes down to intent. If I don't like a dvd and sell it then the creator still only has one copy and one buyer which they made their money off of. If I buy a dvd with the sole intention of burning and selling it then there are two people out there that would have bought and kept the dvd. Only one of which the creator made money off of. The dvd may not have come on the market for that second individual if I hadn't bought it with that intent and he would have bought a new copy. I try on the Café to buy stuff first but with dvds usually end up getting them from the creator.

"If I don't like a dvd and sell it then the creator still only has one copy and one buyer which they made their money off of. If I buy a dvd with the sole intention of burning and selling it then there are two people out there that would have bought and kept the dvd. "

? Regardless of whether or not you liked the DVD or didn't like the DVD, once you sell it it has the same effect regardless of whether or not you kept a copy. The creator loses a potential second sale.....or does he. The buyer of the used DVD could have just as easily bought the DVD from the creator and chose not to. That would indicate that they were never a potential sale for the creator. Their only reason for buying was to get it cheap and it was not worth it to them to purchase the product a full price.

The point being, buyers of used DVD's are not potential lost sales. They were never potential sales to begin with.

HOWEVER: the person buying the used DVD is a potential TESTIMONIAL for future sales. So in those cases, you can make the argument that the selling of the used DVD actually increases sales because it is one more person, who would not have had access to the DVD at full price, who is exposed to the work and who could potentially write a rave review of it that would encourage others to buy. The more people exposed, the more people who can say it is the best thing since sliced bread on the Café and elsewhere.

You completely failed to see the second point I made and my testimonial. Since he bought the dvd to keep that copy should have never seen the market again. The person that bought that dvd may have bought it from the creator. So let's call it a potential lost sale.

His reasoning for keeping a copy and selling the original is to save money. What he does is his own business as long as no one is getting hurt and no laws are being broken.

There is no evidence to support creator's loose money from resales. The theory is greatly flawed. Without that theory of argument, what is it that's immoral?

Again I hasten to point out that the ONLY guy in the discussion with a genuine LAW DEGREE seems to think it is a crime. But hey what does he know anyhow huh?

There is a simple answer: just don't buy any used DVD's. Always support the original creator whenever possible and always buy new when possible. Should it also be a question: Is it immoral to buy used DVD's knowing the person selling it probably made a copy?

Alright. I feel this discussion has pretty much hit it's conclusion as no new arguments have been made. Just want to throw two more thing out. The argument that people should be able to do what ever they want is a cop out crap argument. It seems pretty clear how the creator can lose money if not every time.

Anytime someone sells a used DVD or Book the creator potentially loses a sale every time. Unless you are calling for the ban on selling used DVD's and books, I'm not sure what your argument is anymore.

In the last 15 years I've heard that pathetic unfounded theory be thrown around by people who don't actually know much about producing dvd's. In the last 15 years we have seen more and more magic dvd's being produced despite the on going resales of dvd's. No creator has ever stopped making dvd's because he was loosing money to resales. Severa members of the Café who produce dvd's have already claimed tht they don't loose money to resales, nor does it hurt them financially. Ellusionist, Penguin, Jay Sankey, Sans Mind, etc have been producing more and more dvd's.

I challenged Danny Doyle to provide any evidence to support the theory, which he hasn't done, but I challenge anyone to provide any real evidence to support the arguement.

And yes, people are allowed to do what they want as long as no one gets hurt and no laws are broken. The bigger problem are those who think they are the moral police and anyone who doesn't adhere to their set of morals is immoral.

In haven't even bothered because you are boorish. As I said the only guy with a law degree says it is a crime. You have not come remotely close to showing it is not. Why bother discussing? You will make moral justifications until you are the last one talking. You win.

Dannydoyle, let's just talk about what we all agree is legal; selling used DVD's. I assume you agree that selling and buying used DVD's is legal. Do you believe it is moral? It has the same financial impact on the creator: ie. a lost sale. Do you believe the legal buying and selling of used DVD's is immoral based on the argument that lost sales = higher costs?