Pete Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One last point is that governments serve the interests primarily of > their own people. So the job of Britain's government is to get me, > and other Brits, the best possible deal on films within the UK. This > might mean balancing the interests of British consumers against > British film producers. It doesn't mean balancing British consumers > against foreign film producers. If no films were made in Britain, the > government would logically insist on a completely free market that > allowed parallel imports and circumvention measures.
Maybe. Not necessarily if that meant that no new movies ever got made. Now, the UK isn't a big enough market for this, but consider what would happen if the US said "listen, free drugs would be great for consumers so let's get rid of all drug patents". This would probably dramatically increase social welfare at the moment, since there are quite a few people who would buy drugs if they were cheaper. (It's of course not Pareto dominant). However, it seems likely that this would have such a negative effect on future production that it would lower social welfare in the future. -Ekr -- [Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]] http://www.rtfm.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]