Maybe we could have a post dedicated to a discussion of just what cost, scarcity, etc are in economic terms... those you use? I for sure would find it usefull.
(and yes I could research it on the interweb... but it's the discussion around the terms I am looking for)
"the method of distribution doesnt make something more or less "infinite", as mankind for the most part has the ability to reproduce almost any book, cd, or dvd to levels that would rival infinite numbers (more than total demand)." .... no but the "cost" of distribution does.
"further, while we have the ability to digitize them and sell them online, the costs related to selling something negates the good being infinite, even if an infinite number of copies can be produced, because in normal commerce it would never be free. "..... please xplain as this appears to make no sense to me? How do the costs rellated to selling negate a good being infinite... and in normal commerce it well could (and does) be free (as in beer) if the cost to produce it are zero (effectively). Did you just perform a sleight of hand with what we were discussing there?
"as suzanne said, "Scarcity doesn't have a lot of meaning when there is excess production and you end up dumping those goods because there is no demand for them." - the type of scarcity that mike talks about in hard goods is artificial, man made, created not by some grand limitation, but only by someone saying "only make 100 of them". the true value isnt in the artificial scarcity, but rather in the actual value of the product itself. 20 years from now, few people will be trading collectible techdirt hoodies. hoodies in and of themselves are not rare or special, we can always make more (and even make exact replicas). the scarcity of those hoodies is entirely artificial in nature."...
okay got several problems with this one. Where did value come from - we were discussing cost? cost != value. I agree hoddies are not rare or special... but the "infinte" good of owning an original released in 2010 Techdirt hoodie could be quite valueable - because of the background. The hoddies "value" as you are using it is related to its scarcity... if you make a copy surely you "valued" it enough do outweigh the cost of doing so?
I return to my original point cost != value ! = scarcity.
We would appear to have semantic shenannigans in this thread :) (and I may be equally at fault since no economics at all)
I think you missed the point. The physical bound book is the scarcity -not the content. By their very nature physical objects will be a scarce good (until some clever boffin invents the duplicator).
People are willing to pay for a scarcity... they could get the content for free, since content by its very nature is an infinite good... actually so are ideas.
So it does not matter if the content is scanned copied etc... there is still a market demand to be satisfied.. and if they wish to professionally print and bind the book - well more power to them - it's probably going to cost more than the purchase would (in both effort & money).
just a refinement... how about the NETWORK is owned by a seperate company that is banned from retail... ie: they can only sell wholesale to service providers... then the only regulation required would be to ensure "fair and equal" pricing for all retailers.
Re: Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
Okay - sure but the "lock in" covers the "purchase" cost of the handset?
If you want a "free" handset they have to recover the cost at some point... hence the lock to their network.
Or am i misunderstanding your point?
On a side note pretty much every network started out gov owned (here in Aus for eg.) and got privatised.... no difference... you pay the goc (in higher taxes) or you pay the corp (in higher call fees) I dont see that as relevant to the discussion about locking... they lock to recover the handset cost.
Now if you think they recover too much.. well I am certainly not going to argue on that :) If they ploughed the profits back into the NETWORK increasing coverage and performance I would have no issues... but why do the shareholders deserve double digit returns while the custormers get shafted!
Also the whole analogy of locks and so forth is flawed...
1 - lock my car, house etc... no law says I must have locks.. I can choose.
2 - banks - banks hold other peoples property and those people ask/expect locks.. again a choice not a law.
3 - I legally purchase a movie DVD and legally try to make the backuop copy (I have kids... DVDs have very short lives) and If the publisher *chooses* to put DRM/Encrypt on it then I will have broken the law... in following the law.
point - the first 2 are my choice regarding my property. The 3rd is someone else's choice regarding my property.
I beg to disagree such a law should be passed unless it contains clear and explicit protections for legal uses.
Sorry - I also meant to say fair point. But I really think few infringers would actually front up to court (or file response) since they would likely be aware they could face prosecution... most likely a series of default judgements would occur for the illegal content but the "fair use" ones would have the opportinity to create clear case law and examples leading to perhaps less litigation in the future (for those types)?
But why do they need a more expedient method - once a court is involved to remove the content surely the copyright holder would also prosecute the "infringer" for $$$$$$$$$$$?
Thus they are recompensed for the delay and costs? I am sure if the courts receive a constant stream of these they would expedite or streamline the court process in response.
Also how would it be a haven for "all sorts of abuse"... surely it would only be a haven for ISPs with infringing copyright content hosted by them?
"...years of legal horseshit..." so you agree the system needs to be improved - finally TAM and I agree :)... er that is you TAM?
But it is not the ISP seeking redress - it is the producer who says "you did it" when they should say "who did it?".
Sharing your connection may violate the TOS and involve contract law (with your ISP) but it is not equal to direct copyright infringement with a 3rd party.
Tha'ts why just an IP cannot identify an infringer with absolute certainty.
I read "photographic Illustration" as just another photo.
How about some of that full-disclosure goodness and a more explicit caption because I sure misunderstood it.
"Photo of blah... present but not pictured blah, blah" or
"Photo of Blah (Removed Images: Blah Blah and Blah)
If they want to photoshop - fine - but the same rules as for editorially edited (what a mouthfull) articles ot text.
7 Sell toolkit
8 Use profit to buy Hollywood Studio/Label
9 Break into pieces and sell to stimulate Indie production
10 Rinse and Repeat...
11 Use profits from sales to buy Lobby Groups
12 Feed Lobbyists to sharks
14...?
15 Have Indie studios make shark films?
1 - Buy Wholesale pipe as Company A (bandwidth for 2-3 million subscribers or whatever)
2 - Build a toolkit for rapid deployment of a "small" ISP (B
3 - Deploy ISP Sell Bandwidth A->B
4 - Deploy ISP Sell Bandwidth A->B
5...
6 Profit?
On the post: Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities
Re: Re: Infinite wisdom - finite knowledge - confused 'consultants'
Maybe we could have a post dedicated to a discussion of just what cost, scarcity, etc are in economic terms... those you use? I for sure would find it usefull.
(and yes I could research it on the interweb... but it's the discussion around the terms I am looking for)
Cheers.
On the post: Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite wisdom - finite knowledge - confused 'consultants'
"further, while we have the ability to digitize them and sell them online, the costs related to selling something negates the good being infinite, even if an infinite number of copies can be produced, because in normal commerce it would never be free. "..... please xplain as this appears to make no sense to me? How do the costs rellated to selling negate a good being infinite... and in normal commerce it well could (and does) be free (as in beer) if the cost to produce it are zero (effectively). Did you just perform a sleight of hand with what we were discussing there?
"as suzanne said, "Scarcity doesn't have a lot of meaning when there is excess production and you end up dumping those goods because there is no demand for them." - the type of scarcity that mike talks about in hard goods is artificial, man made, created not by some grand limitation, but only by someone saying "only make 100 of them". the true value isnt in the artificial scarcity, but rather in the actual value of the product itself. 20 years from now, few people will be trading collectible techdirt hoodies. hoodies in and of themselves are not rare or special, we can always make more (and even make exact replicas). the scarcity of those hoodies is entirely artificial in nature."...
okay got several problems with this one. Where did value come from - we were discussing cost? cost != value. I agree hoddies are not rare or special... but the "infinte" good of owning an original released in 2010 Techdirt hoodie could be quite valueable - because of the background. The hoddies "value" as you are using it is related to its scarcity... if you make a copy surely you "valued" it enough do outweigh the cost of doing so?
I return to my original point cost != value ! = scarcity.
We would appear to have semantic shenannigans in this thread :) (and I may be equally at fault since no economics at all)
On the post: Documentary Filmmakers Want DMCA Exemption; But Almost Definitely Won't Get It
Re: Define irony...
On the post: Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities
Re: Re: Re: Infinite wisdom - finite knowledge - confused 'consultants'
scarce = measurable/significant cost to produce/duplicate 1 item
infinite = no measurable/significant cost to produce/duplicate 1 item
Seems to me if using that interpretation his points are valid.
On the post: Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities
Re:
People are willing to pay for a scarcity... they could get the content for free, since content by its very nature is an infinite good... actually so are ideas.
So it does not matter if the content is scanned copied etc... there is still a market demand to be satisfied.. and if they wish to professionally print and bind the book - well more power to them - it's probably going to cost more than the purchase would (in both effort & money).
Now i just need an idea for a duplicator :)
On the post: AT&T Ditches Metered Billing Trials Without Telling Anyone
Re:
Wow - I like that one :)
On the post: AT&T Ditches Metered Billing Trials Without Telling Anyone
Re: Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
If you want a "free" handset they have to recover the cost at some point... hence the lock to their network.
Or am i misunderstanding your point?
On a side note pretty much every network started out gov owned (here in Aus for eg.) and got privatised.... no difference... you pay the goc (in higher taxes) or you pay the corp (in higher call fees) I dont see that as relevant to the discussion about locking... they lock to recover the handset cost.
Now if you think they recover too much.. well I am certainly not going to argue on that :) If they ploughed the profits back into the NETWORK increasing coverage and performance I would have no issues... but why do the shareholders deserve double digit returns while the custormers get shafted!
On the post: AT&T Ditches Metered Billing Trials Without Telling Anyone
Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
So unless it is different where you are.... how is locking the phone "market abuse" if you can buy the same phone unlocked elsewhere?
That said your first point stands... bring on the competition.
On the post: Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights
Re: Bank analogy
Also the whole analogy of locks and so forth is flawed...
1 - lock my car, house etc... no law says I must have locks.. I can choose.
2 - banks - banks hold other peoples property and those people ask/expect locks.. again a choice not a law.
3 - I legally purchase a movie DVD and legally try to make the backuop copy (I have kids... DVDs have very short lives) and If the publisher *chooses* to put DRM/Encrypt on it then I will have broken the law... in following the law.
point - the first 2 are my choice regarding my property. The 3rd is someone else's choice regarding my property.
I beg to disagree such a law should be passed unless it contains clear and explicit protections for legal uses.
On the post: Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights
Re:
What he said!
On the post: Is There A Downside To Limiting Third Party Liability?
Re:
What are your thoughts on this?
On the post: Is There A Downside To Limiting Third Party Liability?
Re:
But why do they need a more expedient method - once a court is involved to remove the content surely the copyright holder would also prosecute the "infringer" for $$$$$$$$$$$?
Thus they are recompensed for the delay and costs? I am sure if the courts receive a constant stream of these they would expedite or streamline the court process in response.
Also how would it be a haven for "all sorts of abuse"... surely it would only be a haven for ISPs with infringing copyright content hosted by them?
"...years of legal horseshit..." so you agree the system needs to be improved - finally TAM and I agree :)... er that is you TAM?
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Open and Shut
I for one repect the law - those who make it is another matter :)
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IANAL
Ever consider here in AUS it is the phone service and user name NOT the MAC?
I can use any modem on my line... but not on another line regardless of user/mac.
so maybe tone it down a bit mate - your opinionated fangs are showing :)
Disclaimer: I am a Lv3 NOC tech.
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: IANAL
Sharing your connection may violate the TOS and involve contract law (with your ISP) but it is not equal to direct copyright infringement with a 3rd party.
Tha'ts why just an IP cannot identify an infringer with absolute certainty.
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
On the post: Confusion Over Liability Extends To The Real World, Rather Than Just Online
Correction required?
On the post: Newspaper Edits Politicians Out Of Bill Signing Photograph; Doesn't Get Why People Think That's Bad
How about some of that full-disclosure goodness and a more explicit caption because I sure misunderstood it.
"Photo of blah... present but not pictured blah, blah" or
"Photo of Blah (Removed Images: Blah Blah and Blah)
If they want to photoshop - fine - but the same rules as for editorially edited (what a mouthfull) articles ot text.
Even a simple "[snip]" tag would do :)
On the post: UK Regulator Says Digital Economy Act Only Applies To Big Wireline ISPs
Re:
7 Sell toolkit
8 Use profit to buy Hollywood Studio/Label
9 Break into pieces and sell to stimulate Indie production
10 Rinse and Repeat...
11 Use profits from sales to buy Lobby Groups
12 Feed Lobbyists to sharks
14...?
15 Have Indie studios make shark films?
On the post: UK Regulator Says Digital Economy Act Only Applies To Big Wireline ISPs
1 - Buy Wholesale pipe as Company A (bandwidth for 2-3 million subscribers or whatever)
2 - Build a toolkit for rapid deployment of a "small" ISP (B
3 - Deploy ISP Sell Bandwidth A->B
4 - Deploy ISP Sell Bandwidth A->B
5...
6 Profit?
Next >>