3 ms·

...they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of

...they're complaining about paying more than those who are at a similar level But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. So the local pricing seems about right given the local distribution of wealth (the US has a much higher Gini coefficient of income/wealth disparity), which makes the price elasticity of demand much lower. there is zero cost difference to the vendor No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down.

chris_wot 13y ago
But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. In terms of standards of living, not price! No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down. Yeah, they often do. Medicine, food and essentials should be kept to a reasonable cost. And I suppose you've never heard of price gouging?
vacri 13y ago
Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. Which was traditionally hand-waved away because goods had a much longer shipping route to get here, plus the minimum wage was higher (meaning higher staff costs). Neither of these things have any meaning to digital downloads. No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down. No market participant has a moral obligation not to ask a vendor to justify a higher price, nor to question a vendor's protectionist activities. I find it really weird that you seem to be so strongly in favour of the free market, yet also like the idea vendors can prevent third-parties reselling things through different channels, or using similar blocks to artificially constrain supply.
- inopinatus 13y ago
  I believe that in a free market buyers and vendors should both be free to set whatever terms they like and negotiate on whatever basis they choose. Government interference in that (e.g. by regulation of who must set what price or what their T&Cs must be) is therefore, by definition, non-free.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Then why aren't you supporting the government's actions here? The government is suggesting fixing the issue by removing protectionist legislation, and enabling the 'buyer' half of your comment a fairer field. Government isn't talking about setting prices, but by recommending a higher degree of free-market competition.
    - inopinatus 13y ago
      Well, there's no free-market competition at stake, because Adobe cannot be said to compete with themselves. That is, Photoshop is not a commodity with multiple manufacturers competing for your dollar. And as for supporting this proposal; I have read it, and in fact I do support part of it: the removal of anti-circumvention clauses in copyright law. I just checked and I don't think I ever said the opposite. But I'm dead against legislating directly against geographical segmentation. It's a ridiculous notion, on the one hand almost laughably unenforceable, and if you could enforce it, it'd have a terrible effect on the pricing in developing nations with a lower price level than ours.

chris_wot 13y ago

But Australians aren't at a similar level. Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. In terms of standards of living, not price! No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down. Yeah, they often do. Medicine, food and essentials should be kept to a reasonable cost. And I suppose you've never heard of price gouging?

vacri 13y ago

Australia has a price level 144% of that of the USA. Which was traditionally hand-waved away because goods had a much longer shipping route to get here, plus the minimum wage was higher (meaning higher staff costs). Neither of these things have any meaning to digital downloads. No market participant has a moral obligation to keep their price down. No market participant has a moral obligation not to ask a vendor to justify a higher price, nor to question a vendor's protectionist activities. I find it really weird that you seem to be so strongly in favour of the free market, yet also like the idea vendors can prevent third-parties reselling things through different channels, or using similar blocks to artificially constrain supply.

inopinatus 13y ago
I believe that in a free market buyers and vendors should both be free to set whatever terms they like and negotiate on whatever basis they choose. Government interference in that (e.g. by regulation of who must set what price or what their T&Cs must be) is therefore, by definition, non-free.
- vacri 13y ago
  Then why aren't you supporting the government's actions here? The government is suggesting fixing the issue by removing protectionist legislation, and enabling the 'buyer' half of your comment a fairer field. Government isn't talking about setting prices, but by recommending a higher degree of free-market competition.
  - inopinatus 13y ago
    Well, there's no free-market competition at stake, because Adobe cannot be said to compete with themselves. That is, Photoshop is not a commodity with multiple manufacturers competing for your dollar. And as for supporting this proposal; I have read it, and in fact I do support part of it: the removal of anti-circumvention clauses in copyright law. I just checked and I don't think I ever said the opposite. But I'm dead against legislating directly against geographical segmentation. It's a ridiculous notion, on the one hand almost laughably unenforceable, and if you could enforce it, it'd have a terrible effect on the pricing in developing nations with a lower price level than ours.