Put in absolute terms (for simple argumentation): A monopoly/oligopoly only has "relevance" if it controls something that has no substitutes.
Put in more intelligent terms: The fewer legitimate substitutes there are for a given good, the (socially) "worse" a monopolistic/ologopolistic supplier of that good is.
Therefore: a monopolist who controls the worlds oxygen supply would be far worse than one that controls the world's pineapple supply.
I dont think any reasonable person would have trouble with the above.
My point is that the RIAA are a heck more like pineapple monopolists than oxygen monopolists (well, oligopolists). Here's why:
what they provide is strictly entertainment. there is no critical need for their product.
while they may attempt to, perhaps unfairly, limit access to certain distribution channels, the reality is that a) the internet provides a distribution channel for any competitor b) there are plenty of independent labels should an artist wish to sign with them c) CD printing and publishing is cheap for anybody to start their own label/distribution chain d) much megabytage has been spent here loudly proclaiming the channels that the RIAA does have sway over (say, the record store at the mall) to be on the verge of irrelevancy and extincion anyway.
there are many alternate ways for a person to listen to music besides listening to an RIAA artist. if one feels that one MUST listen to an RIAA artist, it is ONLY because the RIAA has convinced you through marketing and other means that that artist is worth listening to. In other words, you the consumer have indicated a preference despite the fact that you had many alternatives available. Nobody said you have to listen to "XTina."
music does not exist in a vaccuum. It competes against other forms of entertainment for your discretionary income. you have a CHOICE whether to accept their proposition of $20 CDs (or whatever) or to use that money some other way.
In other words, the RIAA, if it is a price fixing oligopoly, is a relatively socially harmless one. Unless your life is so empty, that is, that you feel that listening to RIAA artists is a NEED and that you really have no choice in your life but to pay what they ask. In which case the problem is less the RIAA, but more your lack of a life (I say this generically, not to you in particular).
You are directing me to boldrine and levine? The most laughed at economic analysis of IPR in the last 50 years?
I will summarize boldrine and levine for you in the following statement (if i remember their nonsense correctly - I remember laughing my ass off reading their crap while I was completing my PhD):
"We have a great new idea that will make traditional Intellectual Property mechanisms obsolete! It's called 'doctrine of first sale.' The way that it works is >>> SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING, HANDWAVING, HANDWAVING, IGNORING OBVIOUS PROBLEMS AND INCOMPLETENESS, A BIT OF JARGON, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN
READ their paper. Go on - do it! I mean seriously sit down and read their paper. To quote jay and silent bob, it's fucking clownshoes. I guarantee you that if you approach it with an open mind, you will see that there's really nothing there other than half of an idea that, unfortunately, without the other half is incomplete.
I think the reality is that anti-trust problems and pricefixing problems are pretty much pre-destined anytime you have a monopoly, and when you have a government granted monopoly on copying and distribution (copyrights) it is a money back guarantee.
Absolute and total RUBBISH.
Economics 101: even if I have a monopoly on, say, pineapples, I can not arbitrarily set the price of pineapples to whatever the heck I want and expect people to pay for it.
Reason? A little something known as substitute goods.
If the price of pineapples is too expensive, I buy coconuts. Or grapes. Or apples. Or lemons. Or anything else.
Ah, but the slashdot-esque wanker conspiracy idiot replies: "the RIAA owns the whole orchard!"
DOUBLE RUBBISH.
Even if we were to accept the highly highly specious argument that there are no substitute goods for "music" (in other words, people don't say "music is too expensive, i'll watch a movie / read a book / surf the net / go to the theatre / play with my cat", all of which actually are true and invalidate your nonsense argument further), the fact is that the internet has made self-publishing easy and virtually costless.
If the RIAA manage to extract $20 for a CD or $.99 a song from your neighbor despite the fact that you can put your own music for free or for $.10c on the net then MORE POWER TO THE RIAA. It's called MARKET POWER. It means that they have invested the time and effort to make their product worth what the market is willing to pay. You and I may not like sylvia browne's shite books or britney's shite music, but they have managed to convince the market that they are worth paying over the odds for them.
The basic economic phenomenon here has NOTHING to do with copyrights - save your juvenile rant for another day and another thread and learn some basic economics before you around proclaiming your ignorance in six foot high letters.
Google's board members, looking at a stack of negative press reviews on one hand and the equally negative scuttlebutt reports from their paid slashdot-reading MBAs on other other, decide that something needs to be done. "'Don't be evil' is not as black and white as you might at first think," a google board member and attorney who daily handles marketing and cultural sensitivity issues relating to novelty holiday and seasonal variations of Google's home page logo, was quoted as saying.
Google's "goodness index" has clearly taken a hit with their widely-seen-as-lame attempts justifications of their money grab by claiming "trickle down" democracy/press freedom in China. This latest action of throwing a few symbolic "do good" crumbs to those who point out the obvious hypocricy in Google's being in China at all, is calculated to raise the public perception of google's actions by 6 to 8 percentage points, according to marketing surveys and regression analyses done jointly for google by Forrester Research and McKinsey and Co.
I have an idea. Let's base the thrust of our energy efforts on finding new and ever more exotic things to burn. This way, we can continue raising the mean temperature of the planet and really not do anything but postpone the inevitable. That seems like a much more reasonable solution than, say, reforming city and public transport planning so that cars are increasingly less necessary (as in much of europe) as a day-to-day concern. Because, you know, you can build highways to nowhere, but every penny for public transport is pure communism!
You *do* realize that we're talking about *porn thumnails* here? Is society so fragile that it will crumble if someone displays a tiny preview of the porn on your site?
Sigh. No, we're talking about a general and important cornerstone principle of the economy. Stop trying to marginalize on the central issue being debated by focusing on the relative trivialiy of one particular piece of covered subject matter.
And you don't think that the benefits of having a vast index of all the image content on the Web makes that tradeoff worthwhile? I'm amazed, I really am.
I dont doubt that there are benefits to having such an index. I also dont doubt that that there are benefits to chop down all the trees in the world today to make shelters and saunas for the homeless. However, every benefit must be weight against loss and alternatives. Rulings of "fair use" have been remarkably consistent and reasonable, despite the nonsense that you might hear on slashdot: yes, you CAN make an index that points to things. However, no, you CAN'T do it in such a way that eliminates the need for the thing being pointed to.
The rest of your post is churlish ad-hominem. Fuck off.
It must be quite a liberating feeling living as you do, unencumbered by actual facts or knowledge.
To those of us who live in the real world and know a bit about basic economics, we can show you unequivocally and without question, and beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that history has shown us time and time and time and time and time again (so much so that you are basically arguing the intellectual property version of creationism while I'm duly reciting the basic tenets of evolution here) that countries with relatively stronger IP systems, including the US and Western Europe, have historically created more intellectual property and have made more progress advancing the "useful arts" than those that don't. Does this apply to Christina Aguilera and Mickey Mouse? Sure. But it also applies to pharmeceutical development, industrial production methods, and other things that adults concern themselves with while you're off in your bouts of postmodernist "deep thought" in between counterstrike sessions.
This is a good idea, because the free market has not yet managed to bring cheap and plentiful bandwidth to the masses.
/ sarcasm.// have been to philadelphia a few times. the wifi competitors have nothing to fear from "municipal wifi." Only taxpayers do, given how expensive it is to provide such crap quality service./// won't somebody think of the children!
Now, today in 2006, the US hockey team flew in the day before from all their NHL teams and then went on the ice the next day to play against Lativia. What is amazing in this 2006 game is that the "basically amateur" team from Lativia tied the NHL *super-stars*. Team Lativia went nuts after the game because they should have blown out. It made a big story because the professionals were almost beaten.
This is just ignorant. The US hockey team lost because:
unlike the latvian team, they had just flown in and were jetlagged
because of the way the current olympic hockey system is set up, the US is almost certain to advance to the knockout stages, so there's no need to kill yourself against latvia.
the latvians DID have the advantage of training together much more than the US team
I know many here are siding with RIM "by default" because of some philosophical kinship with those who are fighting against patents or whatever, but everything I have read about this case says that RIM have been complete asshats in all of this. On several occasions they had the opportunity to settle for far less money, and they kept escalating and escalating the situation. If you dislike patents, fine - argue agains the patent system in general. But given that it is the law/and that RIM had more than adequate opportunity to get out of it in some reasonable form/ i sure as hope they come crashing down hard. Maybe not hard enough that their subscribers feel it, but hard enough. Remember folks- be it based in some sleepy backwater or not, they are a megacorporation that have been acting like they are above the rules of the game.
You completely made up this part. The law does not specify whether or not fair use will have financial impacts on the copyright holder.
Wrong. Do i need to post the balancing tests for Fair Use yet again?
I can't be bothered to read the rest of your post, given that I've already responded to the same false claim that you just made several times already. If you can't be asked to read the other replies before reading, then I am not going to waste my time on you.
And what about the judge's assessment that Field was "attempting to manufacture a suit against Google"? That is, this wasn't about actual injury to Field, it was about Field actively looking for a chance to sue someone? Does any of that matter to you?
To me, this is like the Newdow case. In my view, Newdow is 100% right in that he wants the phrase "under God" struck from the pledge. However, his case was dismissed recently because he didn't have standing - something about his not having legal custody of his daughter or something like that. Initially, my view was that the details of his daughter / the specific claimaint aren't what's interesting here - what seemed interesting was the underlying meat.
However, you may have a point: I mean, the guy might be a self-promoting fortune seeker in trying to sue google, but, well, isn't that a key component of our adversarial justice system anyway? I mean - what difference does it make whether it's a jerk or a multi-million dollar corporation suing? Copyright law doesn't differentiate (in the main). You're right it's an interesting question and an interesting sidelight to the main question, which is whether google should be allowed to cache complete page content as it does.. and, not just keep it internally for use in generating its query results, but in rediplaying the whole pages, either in their entirety or not (depending on which of the respondents here you believe - you might notice that some people responded to my post claiming that what google does is ok because google DOES keep the page intact in its entirety, and others claimed that what google does it ok because google DOES NOT keep the page in its entirety!)
you're right. judges are always right and always make the smartest decisions. not only that, but all legal scholars agree with all decisions that judges make, because, again, judges are always right.
I type faster than you. get over it. total time spent on this thread 10 minutes while doing other work. i happen to think it's an interesting topic needing debate - i will call bad arguments bad (and there have been several bad arguments here), but i am willing to listen to any good ones that come up.
Imagine for a moment that you live in Saudi Arabia, where the interent is filtered with the help of cisco systems (I believe). Tell me exactly how you know that Cisco systems is or is not sharing data with the government? How do you know? The point is that you fear trying. Filtering has chilling effects. The basic statement that I was referring to, the idiotic notion that the internet can not be filtered, is independent of the details of this particular google case.
And my point, should you take care to actually think for a moment, was that the wrong law was applied. Or, did I miss your point? We're you actually going to defend the idiot who claimed that anything put on the internet is automatically basically free-for-all because he said it was?
The moment one decides to put something on the Internet, he loses a large chunk of control over that content.
Show me the special clause in copyright law where this says this. If you want, restrict your talk to the USA, since google is a US company. Basically, this is wishful thinking on your part.
Caching is an inherent, and necessary, component of Internet technology.
If you're talking about the sort of 'hardware' caching necessary for speed gains, then yes. If you're talking about google cacheing, then you're talking rubbish. The internet worked just fine before google started making 100% copies of internet pages. if google removed its 'cached' links from search results, the internet would not fall apart.
Searching as a whole does not work without it.
You are confusing the issue. Google CAN keep an INTERNAL copy of web pages and then show little fair-use snippets when displaying search results. The issue here is where google makes COMPLETE 100% COPIES FULLY AVAILABLE. This is absolutely not required for searching in any imaginable way. It just happens to be a an easy thing for google to make a few extra bucks on as a byproduct of its existing, useful, and legal search features.
"This is not true. Ebert & Roeper can show a movie clip, do some scathing commentary, decrease the film's box office take, and make money in the process, and that's clearly fair use."
you've misinterpreted the issue. Epert and Roeper can decrease the box office's take by making a negative review. The basic balancing test required to ensure that use is fair use says otherwise to what you state.
I encourage you to read the following: Definition of Fair Use (pay special attention to points 3 and 4 there). I also encourage you to find out what a "balancing test" means, legally, in case that term is new to you.
The "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Copyright owners are, by law, deemed to consent to fair use of their works by others. The Copyright Act does not define fair use. Instead, whether a use is fair use is determined by balancing these factors:
The purpose and character of the use.
The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
In short, clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The information put on a website is only "free" in the sense you don't pay money for it. However, when, for example, a company puts up a website, they are not doing so because they have extra money that they feel like giving you. Rather, they do it because you are in effect "paying" them by building their brand reputation, ego, attracting you to their other offerings, and so forth. Economics 101, man.
Slashdot Mirror
Put in absolute terms (for simple argumentation): A monopoly/oligopoly only has "relevance" if it controls something that has no substitutes.
Put in more intelligent terms: The fewer legitimate substitutes there are for a given good, the (socially) "worse" a monopolistic/ologopolistic supplier of that good is.
Therefore: a monopolist who controls the worlds oxygen supply would be far worse than one that controls the world's pineapple supply.
I dont think any reasonable person would have trouble with the above.
My point is that the RIAA are a heck more like pineapple monopolists than oxygen monopolists (well, oligopolists). Here's why:
- what they provide is strictly entertainment. there is no critical need for their product.
- while they may attempt to, perhaps unfairly, limit access to certain distribution channels, the reality is that a) the internet provides a distribution channel for any competitor b) there are plenty of independent labels should an artist wish to sign with them c) CD printing and publishing is cheap for anybody to start their own label/distribution chain d) much megabytage has been spent here loudly proclaiming the channels that the RIAA does have sway over (say, the record store at the mall) to be on the verge of irrelevancy and extincion anyway.
- there are many alternate ways for a person to listen to music besides listening to an RIAA artist. if one feels that one MUST listen to an RIAA artist, it is ONLY because the RIAA has convinced you through marketing and other means that that artist is worth listening to. In other words, you the consumer have indicated a preference despite the fact that you had many alternatives available. Nobody said you have to listen to "XTina."
- music does not exist in a vaccuum. It competes against other forms of entertainment for your discretionary income. you have a CHOICE whether to accept their proposition of $20 CDs (or whatever) or to use that money some other way.
In other words, the RIAA, if it is a price fixing oligopoly, is a relatively socially harmless one. Unless your life is so empty, that is, that you feel that listening to RIAA artists is a NEED and that you really have no choice in your life but to pay what they ask. In which case the problem is less the RIAA, but more your lack of a life (I say this generically, not to you in particular).I will summarize boldrine and levine for you in the following statement (if i remember their nonsense correctly - I remember laughing my ass off reading their crap while I was completing my PhD):
"We have a great new idea that will make traditional Intellectual Property mechanisms obsolete! It's called 'doctrine of first sale.' The way that it works is >>> SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING, HANDWAVING, HANDWAVING, IGNORING OBVIOUS PROBLEMS AND INCOMPLETENESS, A BIT OF JARGON, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN READ their paper. Go on - do it! I mean seriously sit down and read their paper. To quote jay and silent bob, it's fucking clownshoes. I guarantee you that if you approach it with an open mind, you will see that there's really nothing there other than half of an idea that, unfortunately, without the other half is incomplete.
Absolute and total RUBBISH.
Economics 101: even if I have a monopoly on, say, pineapples, I can not arbitrarily set the price of pineapples to whatever the heck I want and expect people to pay for it.
Reason? A little something known as substitute goods.
If the price of pineapples is too expensive, I buy coconuts. Or grapes. Or apples. Or lemons. Or anything else.
Ah, but the slashdot-esque wanker conspiracy idiot replies: "the RIAA owns the whole orchard!"
DOUBLE RUBBISH.
Even if we were to accept the highly highly specious argument that there are no substitute goods for "music" (in other words, people don't say "music is too expensive, i'll watch a movie / read a book / surf the net / go to the theatre / play with my cat", all of which actually are true and invalidate your nonsense argument further), the fact is that the internet has made self-publishing easy and virtually costless.
If the RIAA manage to extract $20 for a CD or $.99 a song from your neighbor despite the fact that you can put your own music for free or for $.10c on the net then MORE POWER TO THE RIAA. It's called MARKET POWER. It means that they have invested the time and effort to make their product worth what the market is willing to pay. You and I may not like sylvia browne's shite books or britney's shite music, but they have managed to convince the market that they are worth paying over the odds for them.
The basic economic phenomenon here has NOTHING to do with copyrights - save your juvenile rant for another day and another thread and learn some basic economics before you around proclaiming your ignorance in six foot high letters.
And are you really that thick that you don't see that the two are fundamentally the same?
/ Liberal, but a sane one.
Google's "goodness index" has clearly taken a hit with their widely-seen-as-lame attempts justifications of their money grab by claiming "trickle down" democracy/press freedom in China. This latest action of throwing a few symbolic "do good" crumbs to those who point out the obvious hypocricy in Google's being in China at all, is calculated to raise the public perception of google's actions by 6 to 8 percentage points, according to marketing surveys and regression analyses done jointly for google by Forrester Research and McKinsey and Co.
I think you should get moddd +99999 insightful because you made a "funny" about microsoft. That is how it works around here, right?
/ sarcasm
Sigh. No, we're talking about a general and important cornerstone principle of the economy. Stop trying to marginalize on the central issue being debated by focusing on the relative trivialiy of one particular piece of covered subject matter.
And you don't think that the benefits of having a vast index of all the image content on the Web makes that tradeoff worthwhile? I'm amazed, I really am.
I dont doubt that there are benefits to having such an index. I also dont doubt that that there are benefits to chop down all the trees in the world today to make shelters and saunas for the homeless. However, every benefit must be weight against loss and alternatives. Rulings of "fair use" have been remarkably consistent and reasonable, despite the nonsense that you might hear on slashdot: yes, you CAN make an index that points to things. However, no, you CAN'T do it in such a way that eliminates the need for the thing being pointed to.
The rest of your post is churlish ad-hominem. Fuck off.
To those of us who live in the real world and know a bit about basic economics, we can show you unequivocally and without question, and beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that history has shown us time and time and time and time and time again (so much so that you are basically arguing the intellectual property version of creationism while I'm duly reciting the basic tenets of evolution here) that countries with relatively stronger IP systems, including the US and Western Europe, have historically created more intellectual property and have made more progress advancing the "useful arts" than those that don't. Does this apply to Christina Aguilera and Mickey Mouse? Sure. But it also applies to pharmeceutical development, industrial production methods, and other things that adults concern themselves with while you're off in your bouts of postmodernist "deep thought" in between counterstrike sessions.
Does "it's ok because in my eyes it's ok" pass for a discussion argument these days on slashdot?
This is a good idea, because the free market has not yet managed to bring cheap and plentiful bandwidth to the masses. / sarcasm. // have been to philadelphia a few times. the wifi competitors have nothing to fear from "municipal wifi." Only taxpayers do, given how expensive it is to provide such crap quality service. /// won't somebody think of the children!
This is just ignorant. The US hockey team lost because:
- unlike the latvian team, they had just flown in and were jetlagged
- because of the way the current olympic hockey system is set up, the US is almost certain to advance to the knockout stages, so there's no need to kill yourself against latvia.
- the latvians DID have the advantage of training together much more than the US team
Ditto for Russians and Slovaks.I know many here are siding with RIM "by default" because of some philosophical kinship with those who are fighting against patents or whatever, but everything I have read about this case says that RIM have been complete asshats in all of this. On several occasions they had the opportunity to settle for far less money, and they kept escalating and escalating the situation. If you dislike patents, fine - argue agains the patent system in general. But given that it is the law /and that RIM had more than adequate opportunity to get out of it in some reasonable form/ i sure as hope they come crashing down hard. Maybe not hard enough that their subscribers feel it, but hard enough. Remember folks- be it based in some sleepy backwater or not, they are a megacorporation that have been acting like they are above the rules of the game.
Not any worse (and in fact, probably much "better") than many airline disasters, including TWA800, Alaska 261, and a litany of others.
http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html
your understanding is wrong.
Also, trademark owners can lose trademark protection by not trying to prevent infringement.
Your understanding on tradmarks is correct, but irrelevant. this story has no more to do with trademarks than it does about elephants.
Wrong. Do i need to post the balancing tests for Fair Use yet again?
I can't be bothered to read the rest of your post, given that I've already responded to the same false claim that you just made several times already. If you can't be asked to read the other replies before reading, then I am not going to waste my time on you.
You might think that copyright laws are outdated, but the judge should be bound by them. remember that bit about the role of the judicial branch?
To me, this is like the Newdow case. In my view, Newdow is 100% right in that he wants the phrase "under God" struck from the pledge. However, his case was dismissed recently because he didn't have standing - something about his not having legal custody of his daughter or something like that. Initially, my view was that the details of his daughter / the specific claimaint aren't what's interesting here - what seemed interesting was the underlying meat.
However, you may have a point: I mean, the guy might be a self-promoting fortune seeker in trying to sue google, but, well, isn't that a key component of our adversarial justice system anyway? I mean - what difference does it make whether it's a jerk or a multi-million dollar corporation suing? Copyright law doesn't differentiate (in the main). You're right it's an interesting question and an interesting sidelight to the main question, which is whether google should be allowed to cache complete page content as it does.. and, not just keep it internally for use in generating its query results, but in rediplaying the whole pages, either in their entirety or not (depending on which of the respondents here you believe - you might notice that some people responded to my post claiming that what google does is ok because google DOES keep the page intact in its entirety, and others claimed that what google does it ok because google DOES NOT keep the page in its entirety!)
I type faster than you. get over it. total time spent on this thread 10 minutes while doing other work. i happen to think it's an interesting topic needing debate - i will call bad arguments bad (and there have been several bad arguments here), but i am willing to listen to any good ones that come up.
Imagine for a moment that you live in Saudi Arabia, where the interent is filtered with the help of cisco systems (I believe). Tell me exactly how you know that Cisco systems is or is not sharing data with the government? How do you know? The point is that you fear trying. Filtering has chilling effects. The basic statement that I was referring to, the idiotic notion that the internet can not be filtered, is independent of the details of this particular google case.
And my point, should you take care to actually think for a moment, was that the wrong law was applied. Or, did I miss your point? We're you actually going to defend the idiot who claimed that anything put on the internet is automatically basically free-for-all because he said it was?
Show me the special clause in copyright law where this says this. If you want, restrict your talk to the USA, since google is a US company. Basically, this is wishful thinking on your part.
Caching is an inherent, and necessary, component of Internet technology.
If you're talking about the sort of 'hardware' caching necessary for speed gains, then yes. If you're talking about google cacheing, then you're talking rubbish. The internet worked just fine before google started making 100% copies of internet pages. if google removed its 'cached' links from search results, the internet would not fall apart.
Searching as a whole does not work without it.
You are confusing the issue. Google CAN keep an INTERNAL copy of web pages and then show little fair-use snippets when displaying search results. The issue here is where google makes COMPLETE 100% COPIES FULLY AVAILABLE. This is absolutely not required for searching in any imaginable way. It just happens to be a an easy thing for google to make a few extra bucks on as a byproduct of its existing, useful, and legal search features.
you've misinterpreted the issue. Epert and Roeper can decrease the box office's take by making a negative review. The basic balancing test required to ensure that use is fair use says otherwise to what you state.
I encourage you to read the following: Definition of Fair Use (pay special attention to points 3 and 4 there). I also encourage you to find out what a "balancing test" means, legally, in case that term is new to you.
The "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Copyright owners are, by law, deemed to consent to fair use of their works by others. The Copyright Act does not define fair use. Instead, whether a use is fair use is determined by balancing these factors:
- The purpose and character of the use.
- The nature of the copyrighted work.
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
- The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
In short, clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The information put on a website is only "free" in the sense you don't pay money for it. However, when, for example, a company puts up a website, they are not doing so because they have extra money that they feel like giving you. Rather, they do it because you are in effect "paying" them by building their brand reputation, ego, attracting you to their other offerings, and so forth. Economics 101, man.