4 ms·

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

by 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

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.