"Hey look! You finally recognize the difference between scarce and infinite goods."
Easy with the sarcasm, I was an IS major, and currently work at a medical software company, I'll be the first to state I know (next to) nothing about economics, but that doesn't mean I don't have reason or common sense.
"Then technology came along and made it so you didn't need that gatekeeper any more. Now with that automated switching technology, suddenly there was less need for the human operator."
That human operator simply provided a service, and did not produce a physical good. For a more recent example, we could say the same thing about toll operators and the EasyPass system, which surely makes for more efficient highways, but again, I'm not arguing that we should be giving anything to the toll operators.
Your example is simply referring to the removal of the middle man, which in all obviousness makes for a more efficient process/highway/phone call/whatever. However, in your example, no noticeable change was made known to the caller or the callee (word?), since they were totally abstracted away from this change in process. So in essence, nobody took a hit but the middle man. The driver and the highway don't care about the toll operator, just that they get to their destination quicker.
Now, in today's world, the person taking the hit is not the middle man, but the creator of the content themselves. I still don't know why people are failing to see this difference.
Does economics take into account the effort needed to produce a copy of a good? If not, why not? Economists seem to be able to quantify everything else (i.e. propensity to consume and whatnot), and these things are just human behavior, but make their way into economic models.
This is going to be a bad example, but clearly, the effort to produce 2 Porches far outweighs the simplicity of copying an MP3 of Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Again this is a crappy example, but something must be said for the level of effort used to increase/decrease the marginal cost of a good.
"How does that show that the same old economics no longer apply? You've demonstrated that the cost of production is, in fact, effectively zero."
Well for starters, those pesky computers that have copy-and-paste functionality aren't free, so I'm not sure why you keep saying the production cost is zero.
"Classical economics would have us believe that a nearly zero cost of production would end up putting the price of a good at nearly zero."
Classical models do not take into consideration modern-day problems created by technology.
Just imagine all the time/money/resources it took to produce 1 vinyl album back in the 50's, now flash forward and take that record, and right click it, select 'Copy', now right click again and click 'Paste'. Repeat the last step, 100 million times.
"If it's vastly spread to the point where infinity is a reasonable number for practical purposes, it would be UNETHICAL to charge more than a few pennies per piece."
I absolutely see your point, and it borders on basic supply/demand economics. But, where's the upside to the content creator if you just copy his work 12 billion times over, and therefore reduce the value of his work by 12 billion percent.
Hypothetically, no matter how many copies are available, infinity copies are STILL available, so there is no end to this. It might be "free" marketing, but not when the 12 billion copies get distributed and no one pays. Or the 1,000 people are who REALLY interested do pay, but pay the extremely deflated cost.
"She not only wouldn't pay for it, she couldn't. There's no doubt that there is no loss at all here, and thus, no sacrifice."
So, if no one can afford anything, it should be given to them freely?
Let's assume for a minute that all sheet music must still come in physical form, not .PDF. Someone has to pay for the paper, and therefore there would be some type of loss if Eleanor acquired the song freely. I think we can agree on this, but let me know if otherwise...
Now, in the digital age, you can copy-and-paste millions of times, effectively creating a million copies of this piece of work.
Now, in the first scenario the artist would suffer if Eleanor got the song for free, because we assume he would be fronting the cost for the paper (again, this is all hypothetical), but I have to ask, why the hell would the ethical nature of this change in the digital age? The composer still produced the work, and should therefore be compensated.
Please, let's forget the "we are pushing to preserve the arts" argument because that's only being pushed by the people who want free stuff, not by those creating the content which others distribute freely/illegally.
Please, please address this point. I still struggle to figure our how ethics such as this could have literally changed overnight, with the creation of a paper-scanner.
Hasn't any one heard of SEO? Search engine optimization is the art of NOT being neutral. Given there's an entire field devoted only to this task, I'm sure search neutrality, in its essence, is a goal worth striving for.
"Short sighted greed ruins what should be a symbiotic relationship. They get to sell sweatshirts all the while freely promoting your movie."
Last time I checked, capitalistic society isn't really buddy-buddy with other companies making millions of their idea. The way they see it - I'll sue you for selling sweatshirts, steal the idea, and sell them myself.
Re: Iran is just another Islamic hellhole, and should be walled off from the world.
"The fact that the populace of their dung-heap has not been able to throw off the yoke of their oppressors demonstrates that not enough of them really care to. Thus, they have earned their condition, and accepted the fate that their cornholing theocratic government has dealt them."
True American ignorance at its finest. Why don't you take a flight over to Iran and organize some anti-government rallies? Don't worry, you won't be murdered or worse held captive against your will without due process for years on end.
You do realize Americans are being held captive in Iran for hiking...hiking. Read up before you make another off-base comment:
So does Techdirt organize and try to fight these efforts and challenge the FTC? Or do we all just sit back and whine and complain. I guess I'll be heading over to the EFF for real action.
Want to get a federal employee fired? Send them an email with a pornographic picture as an attachment.
I doubt just receiving an email with a porn attachment is grounds for any sort of disciplinarian action, but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a sensationalist statement.
Or are you honestly suggesting that any joke about blowing something up deserves criminal sanctions and potentially jailtime?
Not at all, but you do understand the ambiguity of the medium that is Internet communication, don't you? Ten people side-by-side reading that Twitter message will have ten different interpretations of what his intent was. Who's to be exactly certain?
Also, this wasn't a joke about the chicken crossing the road, this was a comment about blowing up an airport, and lest you conveniently forget that America is still at war. Airports and airplanes (as I'm sure you are well aware) are still a touchy subject for most.
Moreover, do you think this statement would go over well while INSIDE the airport he referneced? How about just a few feet from outside the terminal? I'd assume not, so why should it be any different over the Internet, where he clearly named an explicit airport that he clearly has access to. It's not like he mentioned the International Airport in New Delhi; there was reason to believe the threat was real, hence the police investigation.
Also, what's the difference if they charged him with another law as oppose to the bomb threat law. This is just splitting hairs, as I assume the bomb threat law carries a higher punishment, and as you said they understood (at some point) this was a "joke" and charged him with the lesser of the two crimes.
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Easy with the sarcasm, I was an IS major, and currently work at a medical software company, I'll be the first to state I know (next to) nothing about economics, but that doesn't mean I don't have reason or common sense.
"Then technology came along and made it so you didn't need that gatekeeper any more. Now with that automated switching technology, suddenly there was less need for the human operator."
That human operator simply provided a service, and did not produce a physical good. For a more recent example, we could say the same thing about toll operators and the EasyPass system, which surely makes for more efficient highways, but again, I'm not arguing that we should be giving anything to the toll operators.
Your example is simply referring to the removal of the middle man, which in all obviousness makes for a more efficient process/highway/phone call/whatever. However, in your example, no noticeable change was made known to the caller or the callee (word?), since they were totally abstracted away from this change in process. So in essence, nobody took a hit but the middle man. The driver and the highway don't care about the toll operator, just that they get to their destination quicker.
Now, in today's world, the person taking the hit is not the middle man, but the creator of the content themselves. I still don't know why people are failing to see this difference.
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
This is going to be a bad example, but clearly, the effort to produce 2 Porches far outweighs the simplicity of copying an MP3 of Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Again this is a crappy example, but something must be said for the level of effort used to increase/decrease the marginal cost of a good.
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Well for starters, those pesky computers that have copy-and-paste functionality aren't free, so I'm not sure why you keep saying the production cost is zero.
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Classical models do not take into consideration modern-day problems created by technology.
Just imagine all the time/money/resources it took to produce 1 vinyl album back in the 50's, now flash forward and take that record, and right click it, select 'Copy', now right click again and click 'Paste'. Repeat the last step, 100 million times.
You just blew the mind of the 1950's economist.
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
That does pretty much sum it up.
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
I absolutely see your point, and it borders on basic supply/demand economics. But, where's the upside to the content creator if you just copy his work 12 billion times over, and therefore reduce the value of his work by 12 billion percent.
Hypothetically, no matter how many copies are available, infinity copies are STILL available, so there is no end to this. It might be "free" marketing, but not when the 12 billion copies get distributed and no one pays. Or the 1,000 people are who REALLY interested do pay, but pay the extremely deflated cost.
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Is this seriously your argument?
------------
Does the Anonymous Coward care to elaborate?
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
So, if no one can afford anything, it should be given to them freely?
Let's assume for a minute that all sheet music must still come in physical form, not .PDF. Someone has to pay for the paper, and therefore there would be some type of loss if Eleanor acquired the song freely. I think we can agree on this, but let me know if otherwise...
Now, in the digital age, you can copy-and-paste millions of times, effectively creating a million copies of this piece of work.
Now, in the first scenario the artist would suffer if Eleanor got the song for free, because we assume he would be fronting the cost for the paper (again, this is all hypothetical), but I have to ask, why the hell would the ethical nature of this change in the digital age? The composer still produced the work, and should therefore be compensated.
Please, let's forget the "we are pushing to preserve the arts" argument because that's only being pushed by the people who want free stuff, not by those creating the content which others distribute freely/illegally.
Please, please address this point. I still struggle to figure our how ethics such as this could have literally changed overnight, with the creation of a paper-scanner.
On the post: Financial Columnist Lectures Little Kids Who Want To Give Away Lemonade That They're Destroying America
Free fall
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
On the post: Twilight Producers Sue To Stop Fashion Design Firm From Pointing Out That 'Bella' Wore Its Jacket
Re: Re: When...
Last time I checked, capitalistic society isn't really buddy-buddy with other companies making millions of their idea. The way they see it - I'll sue you for selling sweatshirts, steal the idea, and sell them myself.
Sad but true, but remember, this is America!!
On the post: Iran Sends Warning SMS Messages To Potential Protestors
Re: Iran is just another Islamic hellhole, and should be walled off from the world.
True American ignorance at its finest. Why don't you take a flight over to Iran and organize some anti-government rallies? Don't worry, you won't be murdered or worse held captive against your will without due process for years on end.
You do realize Americans are being held captive in Iran for hiking...hiking. Read up before you make another off-base comment:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jCVLd5nyPxna4qwYBOwXd7wgHO6Q
On the post: Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked
On the post: Turns Out Lifelock's CEO Has Been A Victim Of Identity Fraud 13 Times
On the post: Microsoft Decides It Can't Compete With Salesforce.com; Sues For Patent Infringement Instead
Apparently, considering Gates hasn't run any day-to-day operations in over 2 years.
On the post: Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...
On the post: Federal Agencies May Lose Funding For R&D Projects Because The NSF Didn't Fire An Employee Who Saw Porn
I doubt just receiving an email with a porn attachment is grounds for any sort of disciplinarian action, but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a sensationalist statement.
On the post: Real Copyright Law And File Sharing Copyright Law
On the post: Do We Really Want To Criminalize Bad Jokes?
Not at all, but you do understand the ambiguity of the medium that is Internet communication, don't you? Ten people side-by-side reading that Twitter message will have ten different interpretations of what his intent was. Who's to be exactly certain?
Also, this wasn't a joke about the chicken crossing the road, this was a comment about blowing up an airport, and lest you conveniently forget that America is still at war. Airports and airplanes (as I'm sure you are well aware) are still a touchy subject for most.
Moreover, do you think this statement would go over well while INSIDE the airport he referneced? How about just a few feet from outside the terminal? I'd assume not, so why should it be any different over the Internet, where he clearly named an explicit airport that he clearly has access to. It's not like he mentioned the International Airport in New Delhi; there was reason to believe the threat was real, hence the police investigation.
Also, what's the difference if they charged him with another law as oppose to the bomb threat law. This is just splitting hairs, as I assume the bomb threat law carries a higher punishment, and as you said they understood (at some point) this was a "joke" and charged him with the lesser of the two crimes.
Next >>