Comments on: Competition and “Competition” http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-33263 tramadol Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:52:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-33263 <p>81e31de21f46 Nice site http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol</p> 81e31de21f46 Nice site http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

]]> By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-54967 tramadol Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:52:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-54967 <p>81e31de21f46 Nice site <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav">http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav</a> tramadol</p> 81e31de21f46 Nice site http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-54966 eee_eff Tue, 02 May 2006 19:30:07 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-54966 <p>"you are making a common mistake about prices, namely you seem to think that prices reflect production costs. They don't. Production costs are just a floor under which goods aren't produced anymore, but prices, instead, simply reflect the customers' propension to buy."<br><br>That's a pattern here, as I have noted the same fallacy in several other posts.<br><br>"The music example is quite different. In that case, what's driving the price down isn't competitors offering their products at a lower price, but consumers simply taking the products without paying."<br><br>Well, yes and no. Recall that substantial portions of the public domain have been confiscated by the copyright extension acts.<br><br>That for me changes the moral implications of P2P sharing.<br><br>Of course it hasn't changed the legal reality...</p> “you are making a common mistake about prices, namely you seem to think that prices reflect production costs. They don’t. Production costs are just a floor under which goods aren’t produced anymore, but prices, instead, simply reflect the customers’ propension to buy.”

That’s a pattern here, as I have noted the same fallacy in several other posts.

“The music example is quite different. In that case, what’s driving the price down isn’t competitors offering their products at a lower price, but consumers simply taking the products without paying.”

Well, yes and no. Recall that substantial portions of the public domain have been confiscated by the copyright extension acts.

That for me changes the moral implications of P2P sharing.

Of course it hasn’t changed the legal reality…

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-33262 enigma_foundry Tue, 02 May 2006 18:30:07 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-33262 <p>"you are making a common mistake about prices, namely you seem to think that prices reflect production costs. They don't. Production costs are just a floor under which goods aren't produced anymore, but prices, instead, simply reflect the customers' propension to buy."</p> <p>That's a pattern here, as I have noted the same fallacy in several other posts.</p> <p>"The music example is quite different. In that case, what's driving the price down isn't competitors offering their products at a lower price, but consumers simply taking the products without paying."</p> <p>Well, yes and no. Recall that substantial portions of the public domain have been confiscated by the copyright extension acts.</p> <p>That for me changes the moral implications of P2P sharing.</p> <p>Of course it hasn't changed the legal reality...</p> “you are making a common mistake about prices, namely you seem to think that prices reflect production costs. They don’t. Production costs are just a floor under which goods aren’t produced anymore, but prices, instead, simply reflect the customers’ propension to buy.”

That’s a pattern here, as I have noted the same fallacy in several other posts.

“The music example is quite different. In that case, what’s driving the price down isn’t competitors offering their products at a lower price, but consumers simply taking the products without paying.”

Well, yes and no. Recall that substantial portions of the public domain have been confiscated by the copyright extension acts.

That for me changes the moral implications of P2P sharing.

Of course it hasn’t changed the legal reality…

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-54965 Mike Linksvayer Mon, 01 May 2006 18:28:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-54965 <p>Thousands of people <em>do</em> produce music for free regardless of audience. See for example archive.org's <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/netlabels" rel="nofollow">netlabels collection</a> with 7500 albums, among many others.</p> Thousands of people do produce music for free regardless of audience. See for example archive.org’s netlabels collection with 7500 albums, among many others.

]]> By: franco http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-54964 franco Mon, 01 May 2006 18:24:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-54964 <p>Tim,<br>you are making a common mistake about prices, namely you seem to think that prices reflect production costs. They don't. Production costs are just a floor under which goods aren't produced anymore, but prices, instead, simply reflect the customers' propension to buy.<br>The problem with music (and other digital goods) is that their cost of production (i.e. digital copy) is alredy zero. A song will not go away only because nobody pays for it, it will instead be traded on the peer-to-peer netmarket at no price.<br>Of course, no new song will be written anymore in a world that allows unrestricted file sharing, but that's another story.<br>The problem with intellectual property is that it does not fit with an unregulated free market: you need regulation to make intellectual property effective because intellectual property does not go along with possess.<br>This contrasts with the case of physical goods where property and posses are not separated.<br>So, to call a spade a spade, you must acknowledge that there is not a such a thing like an unregulated free market in a world that prizes intellectual property.</p> Tim,
you are making a common mistake about prices, namely you seem to think that prices reflect production costs. They don’t. Production costs are just a floor under which goods aren’t produced anymore, but prices, instead, simply reflect the customers’ propension to buy.
The problem with music (and other digital goods) is that their cost of production (i.e. digital copy) is alredy zero. A song will not go away only because nobody pays for it, it will instead be traded on the peer-to-peer netmarket at no price.
Of course, no new song will be written anymore in a world that allows unrestricted file sharing, but that’s another story.
The problem with intellectual property is that it does not fit with an unregulated free market: you need regulation to make intellectual property effective because intellectual property does not go along with possess.
This contrasts with the case of physical goods where property and posses are not separated.
So, to call a spade a spade, you must acknowledge that there is not a such a thing like an unregulated free market in a world that prizes intellectual property.

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-33261 Mike Linksvayer Mon, 01 May 2006 17:28:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-33261 <p>Thousands of people <em>do</em> produce music for free regardless of audience. See for example archive.org's <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/netlabels" rel="nofollow">netlabels collection</a> with 7500 albums, among many others.</p> Thousands of people do produce music for free regardless of audience. See for example archive.org’s netlabels collection with 7500 albums, among many others.

]]> By: franco http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-33260 franco Mon, 01 May 2006 17:24:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-33260 <p>Tim, you are making a common mistake about prices, namely you seem to think that prices reflect production costs. They don't. Production costs are just a floor under which goods aren't produced anymore, but prices, instead, simply reflect the customers' propension to buy. The problem with music (and other digital goods) is that their cost of production (i.e. digital copy) is alredy zero. A song will not go away only because nobody pays for it, it will instead be traded on the peer-to-peer netmarket at no price. Of course, no new song will be written anymore in a world that allows unrestricted file sharing, but that's another story. The problem with intellectual property is that it does not fit with an unregulated free market: you need regulation to make intellectual property effective because intellectual property does not go along with possess. This contrasts with the case of physical goods where property and posses are not separated. So, to call a spade a spade, you must acknowledge that there is not a such a thing like an unregulated free market in a world that prizes intellectual property.</p> Tim, you are making a common mistake about prices, namely you seem to think that prices reflect production costs. They don’t. Production costs are just a floor under which goods aren’t produced anymore, but prices, instead, simply reflect the customers’ propension to buy. The problem with music (and other digital goods) is that their cost of production (i.e. digital copy) is alredy zero. A song will not go away only because nobody pays for it, it will instead be traded on the peer-to-peer netmarket at no price. Of course, no new song will be written anymore in a world that allows unrestricted file sharing, but that’s another story. The problem with intellectual property is that it does not fit with an unregulated free market: you need regulation to make intellectual property effective because intellectual property does not go along with possess. This contrasts with the case of physical goods where property and posses are not separated. So, to call a spade a spade, you must acknowledge that there is not a such a thing like an unregulated free market in a world that prizes intellectual property.

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-54963 Jim Harper Mon, 01 May 2006 17:09:04 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-54963 <p>Support free trade - smuggle!</p> Support free trade – smuggle!

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-33259 Jim Harper Mon, 01 May 2006 16:09:04 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/01/competition-and-competition/#comment-33259 <p>Support free trade - smuggle!</p> Support free trade – smuggle!

]]>