A Game of Thrones - TV Show Discussion Thread

[Kuciwalker]

This isn't about economics. This is about right and wrong. It is wrong to take something--anything--that doesn't belong to you, wasn't given or lent to you, without paying for it. Full stop. The end. Fin. Period. Exclamation point. SEMICOLON!

The entire notion of property is government economic policy, Guy. The notion of intellectual "property" is doubly so, because it didn't even exist for thousands of years of recorded history, and when created was explicitly justified as a measure of expedience, rather than as a way of recognizing an existing moral claim.

[Hauldren Collider]

You know, I'm starting to wonder if you ever went to kindergarten, because I'm pretty sure I was taught that there is a natural concept of "yours" and "not yours" and government is not the source of this concept. Whether or not men with guns are capable of taking away what is yours is not the definition of this idea.

[Kuciwalker]

You know, I'm starting to wonder if you ever went to kindergarten, because I'm pretty sure I was taught that there is a natural concept of "yours" and "not yours"

Yes, embedding property rights in social norms from an early age is an excellent strategy by society for ensuring they are respected

and government is not the source of this concept.

You went to a public school, dufus.

Whether or not men with guns are capable of taking away what is yours is not the definition of this idea.

Dude, we extend the notion of property all the ****ing time. When we [Europeans] came to America, we introduced the previously unknown idea of land as property. When we invented the radio, we introduced the previously unknown idea of radio spectrum as property. When we were in danger of reducing our fishing stocks below sustainable levels, we introduced the notion of catch quotas as property. When we decided to fix the problem of acid rain, we introduced the notion of sulfur emission permits as property.

What is the common factor? THESE ARE ALL TRAGEDIES OF THE COMMONS. When there are scarce resources, be they cars or land or spectrum or fish or the environment, we have to create property rights to prevent market failure. "Personal possessions", followed by land, need these protections most strongly, and so it is no surprise that they were invented so quickly they may have even predated government as such.

[Kuciwalker]

By contrast, the market failure copyright solves is very different: the free rider problem. Some things are public goods: they benefit many other people when produced, but there is no way for the producer to profit from this, so no one makes them and we are all worse off. The traditional example is a lighthouse; you can't prevent a ship from using your lighthouse beam without paying you, but lighthouses are obviously quite valuable to ships. The traditional solution is for the government to use tax revenues to provide these goods.

With original works like books, the reproduction cost is very low, so producing a book many people want to read is quite valuable. But authors have little incentive to do so, since they would receive no extra money. For a long time, this problem either wasn't solved, or was solved through the traditional solution - e.g. the Renaissance patrons of the arts. Eventually, as reproduction costs fell and as governments became more economically sophisticated, they introduced the alternate notion of copyright, which better aligned incentives to produce with the value of the thing produced. But there are large deadweight costs to copyright, and it isn't necessarily the optimal solution. Most importantly, it isn't recognition of existing moral rights of authors - it is a privilege granted for our own expedience.

[Felch]

I enjoy the NHL playoffs. I want to watch it on a big-screen HDTV. So I'm going to go to Best Buy and grab the biggest ****ing one I can find and walk out the door. I'd never actually pay for it, mind you; it's not like anyone is losing a sale here.

If I found the plans to build my own replica of an HDTV, and I went and mined all the minerals and cooked up the plastic and glass that went into it, and wired it up, and made the TV myself, would it be the exact same thing as stealing an already made TV from the store?

[Hauldren Collider]

Actually a better analogy would be stealing chips from Intel, Felch. Do you think it costs $150 to make a Core 2 Duo? No, it takes a few cents. But it took millions to figure out how to make it. But if you take one from the store it is still theft, even though it's like copying a song--the cost to make an additional processor is almost negligible.

[Kuciwalker]

The store pays a lot more than a few cents to stock a Core 2.

Also, much (most?) of the price of a processor is for the capital investment in fabs (not something that can be pirated) rather than the R&D.

[Tuberski]

Take this pointless discussion to another thread, this is about Game of Thrones.

Nerds.

ACK!

[Guynemer]

Actually, don't bother. I'm done with this conversation.

[Tupac Shakur]

That's probably for the best, since Kuci clearly won. #198 and #199 were particularly good posts.

This is about right and wrong. It is wrong to take something--anything--that doesn't belong to you, wasn't given or lent to you, without paying for it. Full stop. The end. Fin. Period. Exclamation point. SEMICOLON!

Dude, you've clearly been living with a libertarian for too long...

[DirtyMartini]

He didn't win. He's making fancy econonmics arguments to defend a practice that is, on its face, wrong.

It's abundantly clear that I don't know jack about economics or law, but it seems to me that whether or not intellectual property is technically different from theft is irrelevant. The economic system in which we all function assumes that intellectual property will be respected, otherwise, there is no benefit in putting forth the considerable effort required to create, for example, a book.

If one disagrees, one is free to place yourself outside that system and pirate away, but society will eventually remove one to an entirely different economic system in which cigarretes and sodomy rights are the only property with which one need concern oneself.

[a.kitman]

its pretty easy to ask questions and find holes. but i would like mister kuciwalker to actaully say something. he is nowhere near a solution to guys dilemma.

[Tupac Shakur]

He didn't win. He's making fancy econonmics arguments to defend a practice that is, on its face, wrong.

Objective "fancy econonmics arguments" > subjective moralistic blather

It's abundantly clear that I don't know jack about economics

Agreed.

[a.kitman]

put up or shut up tupac.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He didn't win. He's making fancy econonmics arguments to defend a practice that is, on its face, wrong.

It's abundantly clear that I don't know jack about economics or law, but it seems to me that whether or not intellectual property is technically different from theft is irrelevant. The economic system in which we all function assumes that intellectual property will be respected, otherwise, there is no benefit in putting forth the considerable effort required to create, for example, a book.

The problem, as has been mentioned, is with how long should it be respected. I'm not going to argue for an instant free-for-all, but life+70 is just ridiculous whether you want to approach it economically, socially, or morally.