|
|
#31
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. 
|
|
#32
08-29-2007, 05:23 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 ] There's no difference between intangible property and tangible property - if there's a difference then it's between public and private goods. Even if intellectual property was non-rivalrous free-riding still poses the problems for efficient production of those. It's a matter of externalities - in presence of transaction cost probably the biggest issue AC'ism faces. As for PVN - just put him on ignore, like everyone whoever browses this forum should for mental health purposes.
|
|
#33
08-29-2007, 08:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
in an information-based world, why shouldn't people have the same regard for intellectual property rights as physical property rights? is anyone able to provide a convincing reason that the government should not protect property rights? [/ QUOTE ] If I want a movie and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I hurt no one by downloading it. They weren't getting my money anyway. If I want a car and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I am unable to obtain one without hurting someone else. If "taking" something doesn't hurt anyone, it's not property.
|
|
#34
08-29-2007, 08:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
If I want a movie and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I hurt no one by downloading it. They weren't getting my money anyway. [/ QUOTE ] What if you can afford it? What if a friend asks for it, who can afford it, and would buy it if it were unavailable through other means, and you give it to him?
|
|
#35
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 ]
|
|
#36
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.
|
|
#37
08-29-2007, 10:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
If I want a movie and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I hurt no one by downloading it. They weren't getting my money anyway. If I want a car and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I am unable to obtain one without hurting someone else. If "taking" something doesn't hurt anyone, it's not property. [/ QUOTE ] This is the argument behind any public good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods And it DOES hurt.
|
|
#38
08-29-2007, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
There's no difference between intangible property and tangible property - if there's a difference then it's between public and private goods. Even if intellectual property was non-rivalrous free-riding still poses the problems for efficient production of those. [/ QUOTE ] Of course there's a difference. If I share intellectual "property" with you, I still have the IP, and you have the IP. If I give you an apple, I no longer have the apple. If you don't think that's a difference, there's not much that can be done to help you. As most people who argue against the AC position, you are completely oblivious to the fact that under a system of voluntary agreements, copyright protections ARE possible, without a coercive government. [ QUOTE ] As for PVN - just put him on ignore, like everyone whoever browses this forum should for mental health purposes. [/ QUOTE ] Personal attacks FTW!
|
|
#39
08-29-2007, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
Of course there's a difference. If I share intellectual "property" with you, I still have the IP, and you have the IP. If I give you an apple, I no longer have the apple. If you don't think that's a difference, there's not much that can be done to help you. [/ QUOTE ] Of course there's a difference... It's the difference between public and private goods. You're trying to tell me about the difference between a tomato and an apple while I am aware that one is a fruit and the other a vegetable. The question that obviously needs to be answered is whether intangible intellectual goods are always public goods. [ QUOTE ] As most people who argue against the AC position, you are completely oblivious to the fact that under a system of voluntary agreements, copyright protections ARE possible, without a coercive government. [/ QUOTE ] I never even mentioned the government here, lol. Paranoia ftw as you'd put it. Trust me I am aware of the conditions under which the market mechanism can provide public goods and they are fairly restrictive and even then in most likely lead to "inefficient" results. Anyways, do you realize what transaction costs do to your little AC-world, do you? Ronald Coase certainly did. [ QUOTE ] Personal attacks FTW! [/ QUOTE ] Just trying to help people here! It would be a win-win situation for everyone involved.
|
|
#40
08-29-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Of course there's a difference. If I share intellectual "property" with you, I still have the IP, and you have the IP. If I give you an apple, I no longer have the apple. If you don't think that's a difference, there's not much that can be done to help you. [/ QUOTE ] Of course there's a difference... It's the difference between public and private goods. You're trying to tell me about the difference between a tomato and an apple while I am aware that one is a fruit and the other a vegetable. The question that obviously needs to be answered is whether intangible intellectual goods are always public goods. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, now there IS a difference? Which is it? Perhaps you should define what you mean by "public goods" [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As most people who argue against the AC position, you are completely oblivious to the fact that under a system of voluntary agreements, copyright protections ARE possible, without a coercive government. [/ QUOTE ] I never even mentioned the government here, lol. Paranoia ftw as you'd put it. Trust me I am aware of the conditions under which the market mechanism can provide public goods and they are fairly restrictive and even then in most likely lead to "inefficient" results. Anyways, do you realize what transaction costs do to your little AC-world, do you? Ronald Coase certainly did. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Government cannot eliminate or reduce transaction costs. It simply shifts them, transfers them, and masks them. As for Coase, he himself explicitly recognized and pointed out cases of private production of so-called "public" goods.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
