5 ms·

Did you know walking is the leading cause of taxi cab unemployment? You should really consider the ugly nature of walking next time you decide not to cab it up.

by smokeyj 13y ago

Did you know walking is the leading cause of taxi cab unemployment? You should really consider the ugly nature of walking next time you decide not to cab it up. Taxis cost money, and their kids eat food.

freyr 13y ago
If you hopped in the taxi cab, rode to your destination, and jumped out without paying the posted fare, you'd have a point.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  While infinite other people are able to also use the same taxi.
  - freyr 13y ago
    Sure, and infinite other people screw the driver. Oh, I suppose some people will pay the posted fare for their ride. As long as it doesn't have to be us, right?
    - a8000 13y ago
      The point is that digital copies cost (almost) nothing, so by standard market principles you would not expect to pay something.
      - freyr 13y ago
        I understand the reasoning, but I believe it is flawed for two reasons: First, you're confusing the cost of distribution with the total cost of creating media. While digitization has driven down distribution costs, it doesn't affect the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that a typical movie costs to produce. Just because you can download a movie from a server to your laptop for free, does the cost suddenly cost nothing to produce? Of course not. Second, the scenario we're discussing does not reflect traditional free markets. Conventionally, a seller offers a product or service, and if the seller and a buyer agree on a price, there's an exchange. Basic supply and demand. Technology now allows buyers to set the price of certain services to zero against the wishes of the seller, and the seller is powerless to stop the transaction. Clearly, this is not a conventional free market scenario, and we may need new principles.
Zikes 13y ago
The difference between taking a taxi and walking are significant. For your analogy to work you must alter it in one of two ways: 1. You hijack the taxi and demand the driver take you to your destination for free. This creates an equivalent or better experience for the consumer at zero or near-zero cost. 2. Instead of clicking a button and watching 12 Years a Slave, you get a crudely animated version pieced together by drawings crowdsourced from 1st grade students around the nation, and voiced entirely by Gilbert Gottfried.
- nnnnni 13y ago
  #2 actually sounds kinda interesting...
  - Zikes 13y ago
    I'd certainly watch it, but I don't see it winning any Oscars...
- kisielk 13y ago
  #2 (or something pretty close to it...) worked pretty well for http://ourrobocopremake.com/ http://ourrobocopremake.com/
- smokeyj 13y ago
  The reason I think my analogy applies is because "pirating" costs cameramen nothing. You can measure their net worth before and after I pirate a movie and it will be the same. The same is not true of bumming a taxi ride.
  - earbitscom 13y ago
    For this comparison to be effective you have to measure their net worth, inclusive of their time available to earn an income (which has value), prior to making the movie. If they "spend" that time on being a cameraman in order to earn income and the movie studio has to pay less because free loaders keep watching the movies without paying, you have cost them money.
  - 13y ago
mcv 13y ago
If taxis go out of business, you can still walk. If people stop making new movies, you can't watch new movies. (You can still watch old movies of course, so if you restrict your downloading to old movies, and not fairly recent releases, your argument works.)
- Zikes 13y ago
  I often wonder what would happen if the de facto standard in an industry were to disappear overnight. If taxis disappeared, would more people find ways to participate in carpool/rideshare systems? If we stopped making new movies, would people learn to appreciate older classical films they'd never considered before? Surely there have already been more movies produced than a person could consume in a single lifetime, though it's debatable whether or not most of them are worth viewing at all.
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    Movies are still a new enough medium that there quality is still improving, so current movies tend to be better then those from a decade ago, and (likely) worse then those a decade from now. Once the medium platues (or long enough after to build up a supply), then this would work.
    - footpath 13y ago
      By better than, I hope you were referring to the image quality and special effects. In terms of filming techniques and the actual content of the movies, I do not think films made decades ago are categorically worse than films made today.
  - bduerst 13y ago
    I doubt it. It's not like people are making professional-grade movies now in the free time, as they are now driving around cities with their own cars. Likewise, not everyone is trained to make movies as most adults are already trained to drive cars.
  - dllthomas 13y ago

by smokeyj 13y ago

freyr 13y ago

If you hopped in the taxi cab, rode to your destination, and jumped out without paying the posted fare, you'd have a point.

steveklabnik 13y ago
While infinite other people are able to also use the same taxi.
- freyr 13y ago
  Sure, and infinite other people screw the driver. Oh, I suppose some people will pay the posted fare for their ride. As long as it doesn't have to be us, right?
  - a8000 13y ago
    The point is that digital copies cost (almost) nothing, so by standard market principles you would not expect to pay something.
    - freyr 13y ago
      I understand the reasoning, but I believe it is flawed for two reasons: First, you're confusing the cost of distribution with the total cost of creating media. While digitization has driven down distribution costs, it doesn't affect the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that a typical movie costs to produce. Just because you can download a movie from a server to your laptop for free, does the cost suddenly cost nothing to produce? Of course not. Second, the scenario we're discussing does not reflect traditional free markets. Conventionally, a seller offers a product or service, and if the seller and a buyer agree on a price, there's an exchange. Basic supply and demand. Technology now allows buyers to set the price of certain services to zero against the wishes of the seller, and the seller is powerless to stop the transaction. Clearly, this is not a conventional free market scenario, and we may need new principles.

Zikes 13y ago

The difference between taking a taxi and walking are significant. For your analogy to work you must alter it in one of two ways: 1. You hijack the taxi and demand the driver take you to your destination for free. This creates an equivalent or better experience for the consumer at zero or near-zero cost. 2. Instead of clicking a button and watching 12 Years a Slave, you get a crudely animated version pieced together by drawings crowdsourced from 1st grade students around the nation, and voiced entirely by Gilbert Gottfried.

nnnnni 13y ago
#2 actually sounds kinda interesting...
- Zikes 13y ago
  I'd certainly watch it, but I don't see it winning any Oscars...
kisielk 13y ago
#2 (or something pretty close to it...) worked pretty well for http://ourrobocopremake.com/ http://ourrobocopremake.com/
smokeyj 13y ago
The reason I think my analogy applies is because "pirating" costs cameramen nothing. You can measure their net worth before and after I pirate a movie and it will be the same. The same is not true of bumming a taxi ride.
- earbitscom 13y ago
  For this comparison to be effective you have to measure their net worth, inclusive of their time available to earn an income (which has value), prior to making the movie. If they "spend" that time on being a cameraman in order to earn income and the movie studio has to pay less because free loaders keep watching the movies without paying, you have cost them money.
- 13y ago

mcv 13y ago

If taxis go out of business, you can still walk. If people stop making new movies, you can't watch new movies. (You can still watch old movies of course, so if you restrict your downloading to old movies, and not fairly recent releases, your argument works.)

Zikes 13y ago
I often wonder what would happen if the de facto standard in an industry were to disappear overnight. If taxis disappeared, would more people find ways to participate in carpool/rideshare systems? If we stopped making new movies, would people learn to appreciate older classical films they'd never considered before? Surely there have already been more movies produced than a person could consume in a single lifetime, though it's debatable whether or not most of them are worth viewing at all.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  Movies are still a new enough medium that there quality is still improving, so current movies tend to be better then those from a decade ago, and (likely) worse then those a decade from now. Once the medium platues (or long enough after to build up a supply), then this would work.
  - footpath 13y ago
    By better than, I hope you were referring to the image quality and special effects. In terms of filming techniques and the actual content of the movies, I do not think films made decades ago are categorically worse than films made today.
- bduerst 13y ago
  I doubt it. It's not like people are making professional-grade movies now in the free time, as they are now driving around cities with their own cars. Likewise, not everyone is trained to make movies as most adults are already trained to drive cars.
- dllthomas 13y ago