On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, If you offered the average guy the deal Would you like on demand
access to all movies and television shows ever made, even if it meant
fewer and lower budget movie releases in future?, I think most people
would go for on demand access to
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Rival means that only one person can own something at once. That,
technically, is the case with anything digitable.
No. It is the case with the digitized version, but not the work. Nobody
would argue that actual copies aren't normal, private goods. One
From: Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But when the yield does not go to the one who created
the master copy, why should anyone create anything, anymore? (Or, more
realistically, why should people create at an efficient level?)
There's no such thing as efficient level, except in the tautology
From: Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's no such thing as efficient level, except in the tautology the
market outcome is always efficient.
Only if you take as granted a market based on some fixed set of property
rights and other rules of exchange. If you do this, there is no reason to
Marcel Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
From: Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But when the yield does not go to the one who created
the master copy, why should anyone create anything, anymore? (Or, more
realistically, why should people create at an efficient level?)
There's no such thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 12:41 PM +0300 on 7/3/02, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
No. It is the case with the digitized version, but not the work.
What is a CD but a copy of a work, Sampo? Record companies sell
*records*, right?
A copy on my hard drive is *my* copy. I can, in
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Marcel Popescu wrote:
There's no such thing as efficient level, except in the tautology the
market outcome is always efficient.
Only if you take as granted a market based on some fixed set of property
rights and other rules of exchange. If you do this, there is no reason to
--
We both created stuff we didn't expect to be paid for - these
emails.
On 3 Jul 2002 at 20:49, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
True. But somehow I fail to see how one can scale this sort of
reasoning to entail anything approaching one of the current
TOP10 movies.
First, lost of people make
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
For me, this is all about Coase's theorem, transaction cost, Coase's
observation that you can't have a market without property,
Quite. Coase's reasoning demonstrated that any initial allocation of
property rights is equivalent (both in the allocative
--
On 4 Jul 2002 at 1:26, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
But try constructing an Independence Day without Will Smith. Or
the special effects. Or the soundtrack. Or the distribution
chain. Try guaranteeing that it arrives on schedule without
making a loss. I think you will not be able to accomplish
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Marcel Popescu wrote:
I can't see a market defined as anything else than private property and
voluntary exchange.
Then you really must be blind. Markets not based on private property or
volition abound. The political process is one of them. Social control is
another. Gift
On Thu, Jul 04, at 01:26AM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
| I can't see a market defined as anything else than private property and
| voluntary exchange.
|
| Then you really must be blind. Markets not based on private property or
| volition abound. The political process is one of them.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Anonymous wrote:
Ignoring market failures (such things as public goods and
externalities), markets are efficient in the sense that they produce a
Pareto optimal outcome.
Even if you neglect market failures in the usual sense, an outcome such as
everybody becoming a slave to
At 7:09 PM -0400 on 7/2/02, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Touchi mon pidant, touchi...
Shit. All that fancy option-e accent whatchamacallit nonsense with the old
mac here, and it comes back i. Somebody call the French language police
and send Steve Jobs off to jail.
And, yeah, I know, the screed I
14 matches
Mail list logo
