4 ms·

You're discounting the liability of letting people in to a physical establishment for free (bar fights, medial emergencies, guests not actually there to watch,

by ynniv 14y ago

You're discounting the liability of letting people in to a physical establishment for free (bar fights, medial emergencies, guests not actually there to watch, etc). These are absent from media. There is also the difficulty of variable pricing at the door, where you still want to charge the previously paying customers but let in others for free. This is directly analogous, and while destructive to the content business, is not usually weighed against the public good of greater distribution.

rayiner 14y ago
The point is that the "there is no scarcity with digital distribution" argument isn't the slam-dunk people think it is. Even with physical services, things usually aren't at capacity. If you have a private lake and charge people to take out boats, someone sneaking in is probably not taking a spot from a paying customer. As a practical matter, digital distribution is not the only scenario in which scarcity is artificial. Yet, we generally believe that people are entitled to charge others for the privilege of utilizing a service they provide, even when the service is not at capacity and the marginal cost is negligible. You can extend the analogy even to physical products. What you're saying when you argue that you should be able to copy music because it doesn't take anything away from someone else is that you should be able to get the music at its marginal cost of production, which is zero. By this analogy, why don't I have the moral right to get any other product s it's marginal cost of production, even if that is non-zero?
- ynniv 14y ago
  the marginal cost is negligible The marginal cost to the creator is not negligible, it is absent. That's an important fundamental change that invalidates most arguments that parallel non-digital interactions. The only cost to the creator is the erosion of the paying market.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    You're trying to create a categorical distinction between "negligible" and "absent" marginal costs that doesn't have any practical significance. What if I went into a Prada store, took a handbag, and left an amount of money equal precisely to the marginal production cost of the handbag plus the cost of restocking the item. Is that morally justifiable? After all, the creator is no worse off than he was before. I haven't taken away an item from someone else--the money I left precisely compensates for manufacturing and restocking a new one for another customer. He has lost a potential sale to me, but who says I was going to buy it in the first place? Most people would say the Coach example is not morally justifiable, but in purely economic terms the circumstances are identical. As long as the "taker" compensates the creator by an amount equal to the marginal cost (in the case of a digital music distributor, zero), the creator is no worse off than he was before. There is nothing magical about the transition from small marginal costs to zero marginal costs in economic terms.
    - ynniv 14y ago
      You're trying to create a categorical distinction between "negligible" and "absent" marginal costs that doesn't have any practical significance. There is a huge difference between ten million negligible and ten million absent, which is highly relevant to this discussion. If the benefit is negligible per person, and the cost is negligible, the social good is difficult to evaluate. If the benefit is negligible and the cost is nothing, then the social good is clear. If you can't see this, you can't be effective in this argument. and left an amount of money equal precisely to the marginal production cost Paying for something at cost is actually a net benefit to the creator. It reduces risk, increases market visibility, and lowers production costs by increasing volumes. Now, a business that doesn't make any profit is a difficult business to operate, but I'm not sure that it's morally wrong to pay for the marginal cost of production. Products are often sold at deep discount (probably not below cost) or are given away for the benefit of the creator.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        > There is a huge difference between ten million negligible and ten million absent, which is highly relevant to this discussion. If the benefit is negligible per person, and the cost is negligible, the social good is difficult to evaluate. If the benefit is negligible and the cost is nothing, then the social good is clear. This makes no sense. If you're just weighing the cost/benefit with respect to one particular incident, it's quite clear that the benefit one person gets from sneaking into a concert far outweighs the very marginal cost to the owner of any potential liability, trampling on grass, whatever. The latter can probably be measured in cents. > Now, a business that doesn't make any profit is a difficult business to operate, but I'm not sure that it's morally wrong to pay for the marginal cost of production. So you're saying that there is nothing morally questionable about taking a Coach bag and leaving an amount of money equal to the marginal production cost + restocking cost of that bag? Basically, you disagree with how the law protects the producer's right to profit from the transaction. Because that's exactly what happens when you illegally download media.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    "The only cost to the creator is the erosion of the paying market." Development and production was financed based on the existence of that market. When it erodes, the entire proposition collapses. To creators, the existence of a paying market is like the hull of a ship to a sailor. In both cases, erosion is very very bad.

by ynniv 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

The point is that the "there is no scarcity with digital distribution" argument isn't the slam-dunk people think it is. Even with physical services, things usually aren't at capacity. If you have a private lake and charge people to take out boats, someone sneaking in is probably not taking a spot from a paying customer. As a practical matter, digital distribution is not the only scenario in which scarcity is artificial. Yet, we generally believe that people are entitled to charge others for the privilege of utilizing a service they provide, even when the service is not at capacity and the marginal cost is negligible. You can extend the analogy even to physical products. What you're saying when you argue that you should be able to copy music because it doesn't take anything away from someone else is that you should be able to get the music at its marginal cost of production, which is zero. By this analogy, why don't I have the moral right to get any other product s it's marginal cost of production, even if that is non-zero?

ynniv 14y ago
the marginal cost is negligible The marginal cost to the creator is not negligible, it is absent. That's an important fundamental change that invalidates most arguments that parallel non-digital interactions. The only cost to the creator is the erosion of the paying market.
- rayiner 14y ago
  You're trying to create a categorical distinction between "negligible" and "absent" marginal costs that doesn't have any practical significance. What if I went into a Prada store, took a handbag, and left an amount of money equal precisely to the marginal production cost of the handbag plus the cost of restocking the item. Is that morally justifiable? After all, the creator is no worse off than he was before. I haven't taken away an item from someone else--the money I left precisely compensates for manufacturing and restocking a new one for another customer. He has lost a potential sale to me, but who says I was going to buy it in the first place? Most people would say the Coach example is not morally justifiable, but in purely economic terms the circumstances are identical. As long as the "taker" compensates the creator by an amount equal to the marginal cost (in the case of a digital music distributor, zero), the creator is no worse off than he was before. There is nothing magical about the transition from small marginal costs to zero marginal costs in economic terms.
  - ynniv 14y ago
    You're trying to create a categorical distinction between "negligible" and "absent" marginal costs that doesn't have any practical significance. There is a huge difference between ten million negligible and ten million absent, which is highly relevant to this discussion. If the benefit is negligible per person, and the cost is negligible, the social good is difficult to evaluate. If the benefit is negligible and the cost is nothing, then the social good is clear. If you can't see this, you can't be effective in this argument. and left an amount of money equal precisely to the marginal production cost Paying for something at cost is actually a net benefit to the creator. It reduces risk, increases market visibility, and lowers production costs by increasing volumes. Now, a business that doesn't make any profit is a difficult business to operate, but I'm not sure that it's morally wrong to pay for the marginal cost of production. Products are often sold at deep discount (probably not below cost) or are given away for the benefit of the creator.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > There is a huge difference between ten million negligible and ten million absent, which is highly relevant to this discussion. If the benefit is negligible per person, and the cost is negligible, the social good is difficult to evaluate. If the benefit is negligible and the cost is nothing, then the social good is clear. This makes no sense. If you're just weighing the cost/benefit with respect to one particular incident, it's quite clear that the benefit one person gets from sneaking into a concert far outweighs the very marginal cost to the owner of any potential liability, trampling on grass, whatever. The latter can probably be measured in cents. > Now, a business that doesn't make any profit is a difficult business to operate, but I'm not sure that it's morally wrong to pay for the marginal cost of production. So you're saying that there is nothing morally questionable about taking a Coach bag and leaving an amount of money equal to the marginal production cost + restocking cost of that bag? Basically, you disagree with how the law protects the producer's right to profit from the transaction. Because that's exactly what happens when you illegally download media.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  "The only cost to the creator is the erosion of the paying market." Development and production was financed based on the existence of that market. When it erodes, the entire proposition collapses. To creators, the existence of a paying market is like the hull of a ship to a sailor. In both cases, erosion is very very bad.