[Proculation]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

Proculation Proculation:

Sure competition drives the price down. But in your model, you consider the price should be 0$ since the market is totally inelastic and the supply curve is at 0. That's not true.

Why not? You are competing against a free product. You name a song and anyone on this board could have it downloaded in seconds, that is competition even if the labels want to wish it away.

I don't believe that it should be free BTW, artist should get paid, they just need to find a way to convince people to pay them. Selling a music track in and of its self won't cut it anymore.

That's back to my point: copyright laws and the respect of intellectual property.

Maybe it's a lost cause. Does it make it more legal ? I believe not.

If everybody tomorrow, for one day, decides to gaz at the service station without paying. It will be free. Nobody can do something against that since everybody does it. Does it mean the gas has no cost ? no value ?

[Lemmy]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

And the market will determine price. You seem to be confusing value with price.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say because you don't seem to be applying economic theory correctly.

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

I value the air I breathe yet I won't pay for it. Same thing with file sharing, the market will determine the price. Your producers cannot force a price on consumers if they consumer doesn't think he is getting value.

And I'm telling you that you're making untrue generalizations. If you'd told people 25 years ago that there'd be a market for bottled water today, they'd have laughed their asses off.

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

We are talking about an infinetly copyable item here for $0 cost. So what ARE your other factors when it comes to digital music? Studio time? A mic, some free software and a laptop will do that. What else? Time to take a pay cut.

I agree with you that, for a lot of shareable media, the market price is zero. But if you're gonna try to explain the reasons for that to an economics professor (that's me) then I'm going to challenge you to apply the theory correctly.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Well of course they should, after all there's nothing criminal about charging $20 for a product that only costs $5.

Here's a product that costs about $0.05 to produce and it sells from $1.50 in the US (a 3,000% markup) and so does that justify stealing it?

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Here's a product that costs about $0.05 to produce and it sells from $1.50 in the US (a 3,000% markup) and so does that justify stealing it?

Only if you've already stolen this product, which also costs $0.05 to produce, and is sold for $30.00 in Canada:

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Here's a product that costs about $0.05 to produce and it sells from $1.50 in the US (a 3,000% markup) and so does that justify stealing it?

Only if you've already stolen this product, which also costs $0.05 to produce, and is sold for $30.00 in Canada:

Rum costs a lot more to produce than Coke and the profit margins are far smaller, but, yeah, I do get the joke.

[Proculation]

Hey Lemmy, BigKeith made me wondered about something. I guess you can answer me

I don't know if it's the same words in english than in french but I guess you will understand:

When the price is not at the meeting of the demand and supply curves, you have the 'producer profit' and 'consumer profit'.

BigKeith says that he doesn't steal anything by downloading for free since the cost is 0$.

However, the producer profit when taking into account the other variables like intellectual property et al., is 'stealed' since you do not pay for it.

The question is: Is the producer profit something you can steal, in a legal sense ?

[Lemmy]

Proculation Proculation:

Hey Lemmy, BigKeith made me wondered about something. I guess you can answer me I don't know if it's the same words in english than in french but I guess you will understand: When the price is not at the meeting of the demand and supply curves, you have the 'producer profit' and 'consumer profit'. The question is: Is the producer profit something you can steal, in a legal sense ?

If I understand you correctly, in English we call it "producers' surplus'. You're asking whether a consumer can steal "producers' surplus" (or, can a business steal "consumer surplus")? The answer is "yes". Consumers can "steal" producers' surplus through things like volume discounts and producers can steal "consumers' surplus" through auctions (like E-bay). The trick for consumers it to get busineses to price individual sales using the supply curve and, for businesses, to price individual sales using the demand curve.

Proculation Proculation:

BigKeith says that he doesn't steal anything by downloading for free since the cost is 0$. However, the producer profit when taking into account the other variables like intellectual property et al., is 'stealed' since you do not pay for it.

ANYTHING that's stolen has an effectual price of $0, so I don't think he's going to win the argument on that point. The prevailing market price of $0 is created by illegal activity. That's the same logic as saying the market price for a TV in Port au Prince was $0 when the city was being looted. Therefore I'm not stealling a TV that I just stole.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Rum costs a lot more to produce than Coke and the profit margins are far smaller, but, yeah, I do get the joke.

In Canada, Bart, we have RETARDED high excise taxes on liquor. People use that to justify the illegal purchase of tax-free smuggled liquor. In Canada, the mark-up on rum is much more than on pop. Elasticity of demand plays a huge role in that price structure...rum being highly inelastic; Coca-cola being pretty close to perfectly elastic.

[Proculation]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Proculation Proculation:

Hey Lemmy, BigKeith made me wondered about something. I guess you can answer me I don't know if it's the same words in english than in french but I guess you will understand: When the price is not at the meeting of the demand and supply curves, you have the 'producer profit' and 'consumer profit'. The question is: Is the producer profit something you can steal, in a legal sense ?

If I understand you correctly, in English we call it "producers' surplus'. You're asking whether a consumer can steal "producers' surplus" (or, can a business steal "consumer surplus")? The answer is "yes". Consumers can "steal" producers' surplus through things like volume discounts and producers can steal "consumers' surplus" through auctions (like E-bay). The trick for consumers it to get busineses to price individual sales using the supply curve and, for businesses, to price individual sales using the demand curve.

Proculation Proculation:

BigKeith says that he doesn't steal anything by downloading for free since the cost is 0$. However, the producer profit when taking into account the other variables like intellectual property et al., is 'stealed' since you do not pay for it.

ANYTHING that's stolen has an effectual price of $0, so I don't think he's going to win the argument on that point. The prevailing market price of $0 is created by illegal activity. That's the same logic as saying the market price for a TV in Port au Prince was $0 when the city was being looted. Therefore I'm not stealling a TV that I just stole.

That goes with my comment (the first comment of the 6th page).

Thanks.

[Proculation]

And you are right, it's "surplus du producteur" in french too. I mixed it with 'profit'.

In a monopoly, both of the surpluses goes to the producer. But by 'paying' 0$, you not only steal all the surpluses but also the hidden costs like IP.

[Public_Domain]

[Proculation]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Again, you all protest these grotesque prices, so you understand. Why don't you protest further? Why do we allow this BS?

We were talking economics here. And how it's wrong to download copyrighted materials in an economic way.

BUT, I say BUT, it is not a moral reason to use others intellectual property without paying.

From wiki about the intellectual property:

$1:

ntellectual property rights are the recognition of a property in an individual creation. Intellectual property rights are usually limited to non-rival goods, that is, goods which can be used or enjoyed by many people simultaneously—the use by one person does not exclude use by another. This is compared to rival goods, such as clothing, which may only be used by one person at a time. For example, any number of people may make use of a mathematical formula simultaneously. Some objections to the term intellectual property are based on the argument that property can only properly be applied to rival goods (or that one cannot own "property" of this sort).

Since a non-rival good may be simultaneously used (copied, for example) by many people (produced with minimal marginal cost), monopolies over distribution and use of works are meant to give producers incentive to create further works. The establishment of intellectual property rights, therefore, represents a trade-off, to balance the interest of society in the creation of non-rival goods (by encouraging their production) with the problems of monopoly power. Since the trade-off and the relevant benefits and costs to society will depend on many factors that may be specific to each product and society, the optimum period of time during which the temporary monopoly rights should exist is unclear.

[BartSimpson]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Again, you all protest these grotesque prices, so you understand. Why don't you protest further? Why do we allow this BS?

We "allow" this by purchasing the product in question. It's a free market and you're allowed to NOT buy it if you don't like it. By not buying the product you'll either cause the price to go down or you'll cause the business to cease operations.

So there is nothing to protest and nothing to be forced. Just the same as I hate Wal Mart with a passion, I will not work to force them to do anything, I simply won't shop there until they 1) allow workers to unionize where it is legal to do so 2) stop supporting oppression in China 3) and stop ripping off American businesses by forcing them to license their products to Chinese manufacturers.

Oh, and I also encourage other people not to shop there.

[Lemmy]

I don't disagree with you, Mr. Canada. I have no guilt downloading tunes. I think that record companies have been ripping off consumers for decades. In recent years, concert tickets have experienced massive inflation in prices. Now I spend just as much on music as I ever did, it's just that I spend nearly nothing on CDs and a lot more on tickets. So, now, the artist is getting a much larger share of the proceeds of their own intellectual property than they used to. It's kind of like "cutting out the middleman". The consumer benefits, the artist benefits, the record company gets fucked, but fuck them.

Also, I'm getting to be an old fart. That means I don't much like any new music, so most of the tunes that I "steal", I already bought on lp or cassette sometime in the past. I kind of feel like I already own the license to those songs. Maybe I'm justifying my own theft, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Power to the people.

[Public_Domain]