Intellectual Property Rights: Piracy FTW :b: :b:

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


I know you're being sarcastic, but I actually do quite prefer to listen to a school concert then any rock band or rapper. I also enjoy school sports a lot more then professional sports.

Well, I knew you were just trolling, anyway

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kidicious
An alarm system obviously has economic costs to the consumer. Anti-priracy devices do not.

The alarm system (in the analogy, the anti-piracy measure) is forced onto the homeowner by being included with the house (content distribution), whether the homeowner (consumer) wants it or not. As such, the cost of the house will include the cost of the alarm system. If you need me to further explain how the analogy works, I'll gladly help you out.

Just because you don't get an itemized price-tag denoting the cost of all the raw materials, labor, licensing, and/or whatever else went into production doesn't mean those things are free to the buyer.

Oh dear. What is it with people at ACS and economics. You must have taken a course because you know that there is such a thing as supply and demand, but that's about as far as it goes.

I also know about question marks. I can teach you about those too! But for now it's nice we've gotten you to the point where you can address both supply and demand at the same time. You're making progress.

Yes, apples cost the same when the demand for them changes (at least to the intermediate buyers).

My dad managed and/or consulted for several apple orchards over the past 30 years... so changes in the operating costs and pricing of apples impacted our standard of living (rather drastically at times).

Perhaps you remember the Alar scare? Demand for apples and derived products dropped drastically in a very short time, and thus so did prices fruit growers could get from them. Supply remained relatively unchanged during the crisis. (Some orchards went out of business later because of it, and others completely tore up old orchards that were now almost useless to plant new varieties, and thus for a while apple supply decreased. But the price growers could get for their crops was not affected by a change in supply during the price drop.)

Then in the 90's things really boomed for those orchards who had invested in planting new varieties instead of sticking to the red/golden delicious. At first there wasn't demand for them, but that quickly ramped up and eventually you could get a much higher price for a Gala than a Red Delicious. (To give a supply side example just because I can... several years back China planted an insane amount of acrage of apples. I think mostly red delicious. Once those trees started producing, of course the price growers could get for their apples of the same variety dropped like a rock.)

The last several years there's been more demand for "organic" produce, apples included. The cost of growing "organic" apples (and most any produce) is higher, and the price of "organic" apples is higher. It's not just a coincidence. On top of that "organic" foods generally get premium pricing because of other factors on price beside just supply. Supply of "organic" foods in the US has increased drastically the past decade (from almost nil), but so have their prices. It's the demand driven by increased health consciousness and well... what you might call a "fad" really. Also the type of stores that carry "organic" produce tend to be more upscale, and so prices are higher in part because of overhead costs for the market.

Supply and demand can both change and when either does it effects prices in a market. So can production costs. That's just the way it is. You can't ignore production costs and demand and pretend only supply matters.

That's because it is a competitive market.

Content markets are also competitive.

Even if you try to twist that definition to only apply to competition on a specific piece of IP, there is competition from bootleggers and piracy, as well as situations where lisencing to multiple manufacturers/distributers can lead to the same IP competing against itself in the market.

And of course IP has to compete with other IP for consumption.

I'm the one saying that in the apples market that higher labor costs will increase the price of apples.

No, you said that the price of apples is solely dependant on supply.

It's in the copywritten materials market that higher costs do not increase the price.

So someone can offer a bootleg copy of a CD for drastically lower prices, and that has nothing to do with not having licensing fees for the music?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

WTF? No it means that people are willing to pay more for the PC game. Why do you think different CDs cost more and less?

They are different business models, with different costs involved. Certainly demand plays it's role in the price of games and CDs, but to say it's the only factor is mindbogglingly stupid.

The cost of music is dependant on many factors. Demand of course. Supply as well. (Which is why you sometimes find ridiculous prices on some CDs that are very rare.) Store markup. (Which is why the same CD can have a different price at different vendors) Licencing fees are another factor. Tarriffs/taxes factor into the real price a consumer pays as well. And the one you really don't want to admit to... production costs. In some cases this is really low (for example it's very cheap to make a CD). In some cases this is higher due to raw materials and labor/manufacturing costs like in special boxed sets and the like. And, imagine that... items with increased production costs generally cost more than the same IP content with lower production costs.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel



Well, I knew you were just trolling, anyway

Either that or I think professionals are overpaid.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Either that or I think professionals are overpaid.

A pretty typical layman attitude.

Why is it that laymen who think professionals are overpaid, and that they could do the equivalent job, don't go out and become similarly overpaid professionals?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Yeah, except I don't believe you when you say you can't afford a 13 dollar cd, or a .99 download from itunes. I believe that you have made certain budgetary decisions that are helped by the fact that you don't have to pay for any music or whatever else you download.

You aren't getting it. It is better to be able to listen to all the music I want to than all that I can afford to. This is true for everyone. I don't know why you don't understand that.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You aren't getting it. It is better to be able to listen to all the music I want to than all that I can afford to. This is true for everyone. I don't know why you don't understand that.

Do you give proper compensation when you can to all the artists who's works you enjoy? Do you make it a point to produce value for other's consumption even when they are not able to compensate you for your efforts?

If everyone was honest and willing to work as hard as they can even without monetary incentive, such a distribution system could work. Something tells me that not everyone (or more likely, hardly anyone) qualifies though.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You aren't getting it. It is better to be able to listen to all the music I want to than all that I can afford to. This is true for everyone. I don't know why you don't understand that.

I think its better to work harder to afford nice things that I want than to rely on either government handouts or technological loopholes to deliver me things without my own sacrifice.

Maybe I'm old fashioned.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
A pretty typical layman attitude.

Why is it that laymen who think professionals are overpaid, and that they could do the equivalent job, don't go out and become similarly overpaid professionals?

Not everyone has the same opportunities. Neither does everyone have the same skillsets. Nor does everyone have the same goals/likes/whatver that drive them towards a particular job/career. (And some people even have morals/ethics instead of simply being driven by greed.)

Everyone who has a skillset that's applied to a necessary function in society should be able to make a decent living doing so. Our society is screwed up though, in that we overvalue superflous "stuff" and undervalue necessities.

It would be funny if one day all the laymen were gone. Just *poof*, and we could see what all the lawyers (I'll just focus on them cause as a group they are the most despicable ) would do when no one was there to, service their cars, grow their food, collect their trash, maintain their infrastructure, ect.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson


Not everyone has the same opportunities. Neither does everyone have the same skillsets. Nor does everyone have the same goals/likes/whatver that drive them towards a particular job/career. (And some people even have morals/ethics instead of simply being driven by greed.)

Everyone who has a skillset that's applied to a necessary function in society should be able to make a decent living doing so. Our society is screwed up though, in that we overvalue superflous "stuff" and undervalue necessities.

It would be funny if one day all the laymen were gone. Just *poof*, and we could see what all the lawyers (I'll just focus on them cause as a group they are the most despicable ) would do when no one was there to, service their cars, grow their food, collect their trash, maintain their infrastructure, ect.

Not really what I was getting at, but you know that

And as for me, yes, I would flop around like a fish if the peons magically disappeared.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I think its better to work harder to afford nice things that I want than to rely on either government handouts or technological loopholes to deliver me things without my own sacrifice.

Maybe I'm old fashioned.

I know you think that, and it is old fashion, and it's wrong. There's no excuse for the entire world not being able to listen to whatever song they want, watch whatever movie they want and use whatever program they want.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson
The alarm system (in the analogy, the anti-piracy measure) is forced onto the homeowner by being included with the house (content distribution), whether the homeowner (consumer) wants it or not. As such, the cost of the house will include the cost of the alarm system. If you need me to further explain how the analogy works, I'll gladly help you out.

You just need to be more specific with your analogies. I didn't know you were talking about new houses.

Anyway, the anti-piracy measures don't increase the price of music and software.

Supply and demand can both change and when either does it effects prices in a market. So can production costs. That's just the way it is. You can't ignore production costs and demand and pretend only supply matters.

Yes, ok in orchards there is a lag. Bad example on my part. In the long run though the price is determined by supply. That's not the case with music.

Content markets are also competitive.

No they aren't. Not like that. You don't have homogenous products.

Even if you try to twist that definition to only apply to competition on a specific piece of IP, there is competition from bootleggers and piracy, as well as situations where lisencing to multiple manufacturers/distributers can lead to the same IP competing against itself in the market.

And of course IP has to compete with other IP for consumption.

That's all very insignificant. It doesn't make for the type of market where the price will be determined by the cost of production.

No, you said that the price of apples is solely dependant on supply.

Dude supply = cost of production. You are very confused.

So someone can offer a bootleg copy of a CD for drastically lower prices, and that has nothing to do with not having licensing fees for the music?

WTF?! You are so confused. Yes, a bootleg CD is cheaper because there is not liscense fees.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

They are different business models, with different costs involved. Certainly demand plays it's role in the price of games and CDs, but to say it's the only factor is mindbogglingly stupid.

The cost of music is dependant on many factors. Demand of course. Supply as well. (Which is why you sometimes find ridiculous prices on some CDs that are very rare.) Store markup. (Which is why the same CD can have a different price at different vendors) Licencing fees are another factor. Tarriffs/taxes factor into the real price a consumer pays as well. And the one you really don't want to admit to... production costs. In some cases this is really low (for example it's very cheap to make a CD). In some cases this is higher due to raw materials and labor/manufacturing costs like in special boxed sets and the like. And, imagine that... items with increased production costs generally cost more than the same IP content with lower production costs.

Ah no. I'm not in the mood to try to teach someone basic economics. I'm done with this part of discussion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson
Do you give proper compensation when you can to all the artists who's works you enjoy? Do you make it a point to produce value for other's consumption even when they are not able to compensate you for your efforts?

If everyone was honest and willing to work as hard as they can even without monetary incentive, such a distribution system could work. Something tells me that not everyone (or more likely, hardly anyone) qualifies though.

I don't believe that a system works without incentive to work. I just believe that the current system could benefit more people if more value was recieved from the incentive.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You just need to be more specific with your analogies. I didn't know you were talking about new houses.

It's called reading comprehension. Here is the original quote:

"Then that the houses they can buy are all equipped with annoying alarm systems that restrict the things the owners themselves can do in their own house."

The bolded portion of the statement means that they do not already own the houses. We come to that conclusion because, generally speaking, one does not buy the house they already own.

Anyway, the anti-piracy measures don't increase the price of music and software.

Ok. So the licensing, development, distribution, even legal fees of anti-piracy measures are all paid for by magically appearing money. Gotcha!

Yes, ok in orchards there is a lag. Bad example on my part. In the long run though the price is determined by supply. That's not the case with music.

Yes, it was a bad example. Most of your potential examples are going to be bad because you simply can't pretend that demand, operational costs, taxes, overhead, distribution costs, and everything else and say only the supply of a product matters.

No they aren't. Not like that. You don't have homogenous products.

Like I said, "Even if you try to twist that definition..."

Nice twisting! It's sad you just followed my orders though.

That's all very insignificant. It doesn't make for the type of market where the price will be determined by the cost of production.

You admit it's a factor when before you said it wasn't. And now you're saying in other markets price is determined by cost of production when previously you said supply was the only factor and that cost of production doesn't factor in!

I should just let you refute yourself from now on. You're really very good at it.

Dude supply = cost of production. You are very confused.

You're the one who keeps saying cost of production doesn't matter, that it's all supply. I'm just arguing against your statements using of terms the way you've presented them.

WTF?! You are so confused. Yes, a bootleg CD is cheaper because there is not liscense fees.

License fees are part of the cost of production... and as you've finally come to admit, cost of production is part of the supply side of things... and so price of IP content is not solely driven by demand. Because as you just said, eliminating supply side factors (license fees) can decrease prices.

Ah no. I'm not in the mood to try to teach someone basic economics.

If you want "supply" to include cost of production you can't say cost of production doesn't factor into price, and support that with the assertion that "supply" is the only factor in price.

I'm done with this part of discussion.

The discussion was over a long time ago. At least you've figured it out now. Thanks for playing.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson


It's called reading comprehension. Here is the original quote:

"Then that the houses they can buy are all equipped with annoying alarm systems that restrict the things the owners themselves can do in their own house."

The bolded portion of the statement means that they do not already own the houses. We come to that conclusion because, generally speaking, one does not buy the house they already own.

Now that I think about it I don't believe that alarms add to the price of a house. No one says "my house has an alarm so I'll add X amount to the price." They ask what they can get for it.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't believe that a system works without incentive to work. I just believe that the current system could benefit more people if more value was recieved from the incentive.

By decreasing cost of living (even if it's just in the entertainment department) you are decreasing the incentive to earn money. That generally comes with a lack of productivity. (Not always, some people are very productive in charitable pursuits or otherwise freely dispersed value creation.)

For instance, I've eliminated most of the "optional" costs from my life. I spend ~$400 a year on "entertainment", which basically boils down to maintaining an upper-mid-range computer system and occassionally buying some games. (Internet access is included in "room and board", which is of course a necessity.) Oh, and sunblock for the beach. Since skin cancer would be more expensive. Especially since I have no health insurance.

I live very meagerly. Most of the (few) clothes I have were bargain rack stuff, and I wear them out before buying new ones to replace them. I have almost no possessions, no debt, no financial obligations.

Because I have reduced almost all the optional cost of living from my life, I can get by without earning much money as well. I just need enough for room and board. Currently I'm earning more than enough for that in about 5 minutes work a day. Though there were of course some much more intensive work in starting it up.

So I'm left with a life where I don't consume much, and what I do produce I can do so at my own pace. I much prefer it to a life where I have lots of "stuff", but of course that will vary from person to person. As such, "stuff" can be a valuable motivator.