|
|
|
|
#1
08-29-2007, 05:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property. Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] It is a fallacy that IP is not "scarce". The ACers twist the definition of "scarcity" into a pretzel to fit their world view. 
|
|
#2
08-29-2007, 08:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property. Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] The ACers use the economic definition of "scarcity" which fits their world view. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#3
08-29-2007, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property. Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] The ACers use the economic definition of "scarcity" which fits their world view. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] While they may think they are using the economi definition they are misunderstanding and misapplying it. There is a 20+ page thread on it.
|
|
#4
08-29-2007, 08:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property. Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] It is a fallacy that IP is not "scarce". The ACers twist the definition of "scarcity" into a pretzel to fit their world view. [/ QUOTE ] Under Copernicus's definition, quality posts by him are extremely scarce.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
