9 ms·

capitalism wouldn't "crumble" if people who had no need for a product happened to have possession of it. If I had a free tugboat in my back yard, that does't al

capitalism wouldn't "crumble" if people who had no need for a product happened to have possession of it. If I had a free tugboat in my back yard, that does't alter the market for tugboat operators in any nearby port. I thought that it has been economically proven that digital goods such as mp3 downloads have zero value, since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0.

drdeca 10y ago
How are you defining value? I think standard economic thought defines value in terms of preferences. Such that the value that something has to me is the supremum of how much I value any of the things I would give up in order to have it. So, if I am willing to purchase an mp3 for $1, then I value it at at least $1. If I would also be willing to purchase it for $2, then I value it at at least $2. If I value it at $2, and it is for sale at $1, then I would gain $1 of value in that transaction. If the seller is willing to sell it at any price over $0.50 , then that is how much they value (not) selling it. So then, in this transaction I would gain $1 in value, and they would gain $0.50 in value. I think this is the standard way to think about it.
slang800 10y ago
Digital goods don't have zero value. We know this because people are willing to pay for them. They just have very little cost to reproduce/transport which results in easy sharing. They're not even unique in this regard - you'll find the same easy reproducibility in books, architectural plans, art, simple circuits, manufacturing techniques, algorithms... any idea that can be expressed and transmitted easily. The problem isn't that those things are worthless (they're not), it's that knowledge can't be "owned" like physical items.
- digler999 10y ago
  >The problem isn't that those things are worthless It's just that they're worth a lot more when corporations lobby governments to make copying them illegal.
  - drdeca 10y ago
    That doesn't make the "economically proven to have 0 value" claim true I don't think.
erichocean 10y ago
> since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0 How about the first copy? That cost "0" too? If not, are you suggesting the first buyer pay full price and everyone else get it for free?
- digler999 10y ago
  No, but every additional copy is cheaper than the first, and asymptotically approaches 0.
erichocean 10y ago
> since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0 How about the first copy? That cost "0" too? If not, are you suggesting the first buyer pay full price and everyone else get it for free?
erichocean 10y ago
> since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0 How about the first copy? That cost "0" too? If not, are you suggesting the first buyer pay full price and everyone else get it for free?

drdeca 10y ago

How are you defining value? I think standard economic thought defines value in terms of preferences. Such that the value that something has to me is the supremum of how much I value any of the things I would give up in order to have it. So, if I am willing to purchase an mp3 for $1, then I value it at at least $1. If I would also be willing to purchase it for $2, then I value it at at least $2. If I value it at $2, and it is for sale at $1, then I would gain $1 of value in that transaction. If the seller is willing to sell it at any price over $0.50 , then that is how much they value (not) selling it. So then, in this transaction I would gain $1 in value, and they would gain $0.50 in value. I think this is the standard way to think about it.

slang800 10y ago

Digital goods don't have zero value. We know this because people are willing to pay for them. They just have very little cost to reproduce/transport which results in easy sharing. They're not even unique in this regard - you'll find the same easy reproducibility in books, architectural plans, art, simple circuits, manufacturing techniques, algorithms... any idea that can be expressed and transmitted easily. The problem isn't that those things are worthless (they're not), it's that knowledge can't be "owned" like physical items.

digler999 10y ago
>The problem isn't that those things are worthless It's just that they're worth a lot more when corporations lobby governments to make copying them illegal.
- drdeca 10y ago
  That doesn't make the "economically proven to have 0 value" claim true I don't think.

erichocean 10y ago

> since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0 How about the first copy? That cost "0" too? If not, are you suggesting the first buyer pay full price and everyone else get it for free?

digler999 10y ago
No, but every additional copy is cheaper than the first, and asymptotically approaches 0.

erichocean 10y ago

> since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0 How about the first copy? That cost "0" too? If not, are you suggesting the first buyer pay full price and everyone else get it for free?

erichocean 10y ago

> since each additional copy costs the manufacturer 0 How about the first copy? That cost "0" too? If not, are you suggesting the first buyer pay full price and everyone else get it for free?