Akvod said:
Kasz216 said:
Akvod said:
Kasz216 said:
Um... Akvod... you've taken economics... so you should know what causes piracy. Heck you alluded to it as much when you posted your graph. Piracy is nothing but a reaction... mostly by people who aren't going to buy something.
Is it wrong for somebody to get something for free if nobody actually loses anything? It's a grey area, the only reason I think piracy is particularly wrong is that I don't believe many people, if any are clairvoyant enough to know if they really wouldn't pay for it at it's asking price.
If I made something, ANYTHING... and someone made an exact copy of it, for free, at no cost to me... and I KNEW for a fact that they weren't going to buy it any other way, like say, because they make less in a year then it costs... to be quite honest... I wouldn't give a damn. It's not hurting me, except for my ability to say "You can't have this because you can't afford to pay me or don't have the means to pay me." (Credit cards and the like.)
Personally I think that makes ME the dick. I'm denying something to someone when that denial offers me nothing. Are those pirates selfish because they made their own copies of something they can't afford? Hell yes. However, aren't I being selfish by denying something to somebody for no reason other then I can?
Hell, even if it's "You can't have this because it's not worth it to you" I feel would make me a dick... just so long as I had 100% knowledge that said person wouldn't. (Which would be impossible.)
|
While there is the need for a more complex model and adress to the fact that there are people who do indeed, still pay to buy, I'm sure you and me can agree that there are definetly a good number of people, who are at or above the equilibrium price and marginal benefit, basically people that say "This is a fair price", who pirate.
Why?
If you're a rational person, why would you not pirate? Alturism? Charity? Morality?
Again, I don't want to take the totally cynical look here. We can definetly incorporate a OC to pirating (sense of guilt, risk, etc) and make that the supply curve, but it will be much much more elastic (flater).
You lose two things as a IP holder when there is pirating.
The potential loss of sale and revenue to those who would have paid, if they were not offered the same product for 0 cost, by other pirates.
The labor they had put into creating that thing. That thing that would have never existed. That is undeniably going to be lost. The labor the was put in, the dignity that it entails.
I think it's more dickish, not to say "You can't have it", but to say "I want to have it, I deserve it, and I will take it".
|
Two reasons.
A) Basic economic theory tells us people WANT to pay a fair price for an item. The VAST majority of people would rather pay what they see is a fair price then take something for free. People are actually conditioned to WANT to pay for something. Goods gained "iillegitamitly" aren't enjoyed nearly as much by the vast majority of people.
B) Rational people know that if they do take something they think is worth the money... future versions of that thing WON'T be made. I mean, duh.
Like I said though. I disagree. I think it's FAR more dickish to deny something for no other reason then... you can. If there is no reason for you to expect they could or would pay regardless.
|
Basic economic theory teaches us that people pay the price, if it is AT or BELOW their marginal benefit.
If consumers paid exactly what they thought the product was worth, consumer surplus will be impossible. Although I might value, say, my PS3 to be $700, if I saw it being sold for $300 I will buy it, no? If it was half that, I'll still buy it, and so on.
Economics has a simple logic, consumers want a lower price. You have a much more complex logic, which is, consumers want to pay a fair (under what criteria?) price. Consumers will think a price is fair, if that price is the same as their value for the product, but that doesn't stop them from paying a lower price.
But, that's why I admit there's a more complex side to it, and why I want to add a OC curve to "illegtimacy". This is much more complex, and is much more theoretical. But don't try to act like it's somehow "basic" economics. You're contradicting "basic" economics, and it's in your interest not to bring it up, because in basic economics, piracy entails a perfectly elastic supply curve, all the way at the bottom: $0.
B) Then why do people pirate... out of hatred for that product? And while my rationalism is simple (lower price=better), your "rationalism" is much more complex. Do you really think people constantly think about the macro or micro economic consequence of their buying? No.
But that person isn't obligated to give anything. That person has created something that there wasn't before, and you make it sound like they are "witholding" it, as if we had a "right" to take it. They can do whatever they want with the product, and we also can do whatever we want, with our wallets. Supply and demand, and the equilibrium price that results from it, is consensual.
Those that pirate, are doing it without consent.
|
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
