Just put a sticker that says "Do not read" on the cover of your phone. Then if the cops access your information they've circumvented your DRM and violated the DMCA!
I understand the cost involved - just the buildings alone will be a fortune. But consider how hard it is now for your representative to stay in touch with his or her constituency. The average size of a Congressional district is just below 650,000! That is three times what it was at the turn of the last century. What is this? A Congress for ants? The real House of Representatives will have to be... three times as big!
The problem with your rebuttal is that the economy isn't about money being spent, it's about goods being produced. The GP is saying that piracy is good because it allows consumers to consumer more goods than they would if piracy were not an option. Consumers now get to enjoy music and whatever additional good they choose to purchase, a movie in the GP's example.
Your counterexample is ludicrous, perhaps stemming from your misunderstanding of the measurement of the economy. Pirating music is not akin to stealing a car, it's more like copying a car at incredibly low cost.
What would happen if if cars could be purchased for $10 instead of $20,000? It would certainly hurt car manufacturers and the workers employed in the industry, but it could not be described as harming the economy, for consumers could now have a car and $19,990 dollars worth of additional goods. The benefit to the economy would be enormous.
As the study points out, a song downloaded over p2p is a lost sale. As we all know, the largest scene for p2p networks is college campuses. College students are also notoriously poor, therefore piracy is their only option, as they cannot afford to purchase music. They are made poorer by the MPAA lawsuits for using p2p networks.
In effect, the MPAA is depriving college students of money they could be using to buy music! The obvious solution? Every time the MPAA catches someone illegally downloading music, GIVE that person $3000 that they can use to purchase music legally. That person will obviously stop using p2p networks and continue to purchase music legally, thereby ensuring significant revenue growth for the MPAA.
... was not a good one. I was in junior high, and some genius decided to have the most hated teacher in the entire school handle the gifted students. I could've dealt with that if the subject matter had been at all engaging. We spent at least half the time doing crossword puzzles and watching old movies. We spent the other half reading or dissing the crappy movies. Yawn.
Not once did we do anything relating to math or science. Quite seriously, the only time I saw a number in that classroom was when I programmed my calculator to count down how many more seconds I'd have to spend in that classroom before the semester was over.
My point is that gifted students exist and are recognized in our current system, but unless our gifts are utilized or expanded by the class, what's the point? The only things I remember from my semester in that class are that it was the first time I'd ever gotten a C, and "The Poseidon Adventure" was surprisingly decent.
The price should be driven by the cost of producing, marketing and distributing it, divided by the estimated number of copies that will be sold I didn't forget anything. You clearly stated how you believed sellers should determine their prices, and I called it out as a fallacy. Now you're throwing in competition (not in your original post, and not in this market, due to copyright-granted monopolies) to confuse the issue.
Consider the following scenario: A pharmaceutical company develops a drug that cures cancer. How much should they charge for it? Does the answer depend at all on how much it cost to develop the drug (altruism aside)? No.
The price should be driven by the cost of producing, marketing and distributing it, divided by the estimated number of copies that will be sold over the period of time where the seller hopes to achieve the profit that the market is willing to yield them for bearing those costs. I'm sorry, but that's not how the market works. You sell your wares at whatever price results in the greatest profit, regardless of how much it cost to develop them. It's not rational to sell them for any other price (unless you're a non-profit, which the RIAA is not).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversi on_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy
Slashdot Mirror
Just put a sticker that says "Do not read" on the cover of your phone. Then if the cops access your information they've circumvented your DRM and violated the DMCA!
Absolutely! And think of all the additional revenue the states will receive through sales tax when the prices of goods triple!
Are you serious?
I totally agree. If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that government is just as effective as private enterprise.
Renegotiate. Vivendi realizes that a partnership with iTunes is very profitable for them. They just wish Apple didn't realize it.
You think the lawyers care if the RIAA wins? I'm pretty sure they get paid either way.
The problem with your rebuttal is that the economy isn't about money being spent, it's about goods being produced. The GP is saying that piracy is good because it allows consumers to consumer more goods than they would if piracy were not an option. Consumers now get to enjoy music and whatever additional good they choose to purchase, a movie in the GP's example.
Your counterexample is ludicrous, perhaps stemming from your misunderstanding of the measurement of the economy. Pirating music is not akin to stealing a car, it's more like copying a car at incredibly low cost.
What would happen if if cars could be purchased for $10 instead of $20,000? It would certainly hurt car manufacturers and the workers employed in the industry, but it could not be described as harming the economy, for consumers could now have a car and $19,990 dollars worth of additional goods. The benefit to the economy would be enormous.
As the study points out, a song downloaded over p2p is a lost sale. As we all know, the largest scene for p2p networks is college campuses. College students are also notoriously poor, therefore piracy is their only option, as they cannot afford to purchase music. They are made poorer by the MPAA lawsuits for using p2p networks.
In effect, the MPAA is depriving college students of money they could be using to buy music! The obvious solution? Every time the MPAA catches someone illegally downloading music, GIVE that person $3000 that they can use to purchase music legally. That person will obviously stop using p2p networks and continue to purchase music legally, thereby ensuring significant revenue growth for the MPAA.
... was not a good one. I was in junior high, and some genius decided to have the most hated teacher in the entire school handle the gifted students. I could've dealt with that if the subject matter had been at all engaging. We spent at least half the time doing crossword puzzles and watching old movies. We spent the other half reading or dissing the crappy movies. Yawn.
Not once did we do anything relating to math or science. Quite seriously, the only time I saw a number in that classroom was when I programmed my calculator to count down how many more seconds I'd have to spend in that classroom before the semester was over.
My point is that gifted students exist and are recognized in our current system, but unless our gifts are utilized or expanded by the class, what's the point? The only things I remember from my semester in that class are that it was the first time I'd ever gotten a C, and "The Poseidon Adventure" was surprisingly decent.
Consider the following scenario: A pharmaceutical company develops a drug that cures cancer. How much should they charge for it? Does the answer depend at all on how much it cost to develop the drug (altruism aside)? No.