On Tuesday 12 June 2007 10:00, Andy wrote:
> On 12/06/07, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's an interesting point that I read a while back "intelligence is
> > the scarcest resource". And if you think about it, in many respects from
> > a human perspective this is true. So we divide up problems to fit our
> > brain size and capabilities. "That'll take X man-weeks, Y man-years".
>
> You have missed the point entirely.
I may have missed your point, no need to shout, so I'll re-read.
> By definition something that can be infinitely replicated is NOT a
> scarce resource.
Correct. I can create hundreds of copies of an idea trivially.
> You can spout rubbish out the human mind all you like but it can't change
> that.
I can spout as much rubbish about the human mind as I like. I'm not however an
infinite resource of rubbish. Occasionally something will come out that's not
rubbish if I try for long enough. However even as a source of rubbish and
non-rubbish, I am a finite resource.
And that finite resource now needs to work on something else. If you get my
point, good, if you don't - sorry :-)
> And a point you entirely missed is that the "creativity" is only needed
> once. In the original creation of said item of media.
Not missed at all. I do prefer to have something new though on a regular
basis. The new series of doctor who was welcome after the endless copies
were repeated on UK Gold.
> It is NOT needed for further copies and thus those copies are not
> scarce ergo no price needed.
The copies are not a scarce resource. I never said they were cf:
"Currently the economic model that finds a way to pay for this scarce
resource [creativity/intelligence] is essentially predicated on copying &
distribution essentially being a hard thing to do."
"... due to copying & distribution no longer being as scarce a resource as
it was ..."
I say less, because although I can trivially create a copies today, its not as
trivial for the majority of people to make large numbers of copies very
rapidly. (I can send one email, and it go to lots of people, but it either
ties up my connection or I rely on a distribution service).
Over a sufficiently long period of time though, yes, today copies are not a
scarce resource. I never claimed that they were.
> I did not state that creators do not need to be payed,
You stated this:
> You talk of compensating the creators. You seem to be under the
> impression that we live in a meritocracy and that people are payed
> money based on their worth.
I was specifically picking up the point of meritocracy vs economics. The real
scarce resource paid for is the creativity in the first place (certain kinds
of stuff doesn't get made otherwise).
Since we don't live in a meritocracy, the way this scarce resource
(creativity) is paid for is through two other scarce resources, one real,
one artificial. One is leveraging the effort of DVD/CD/etc copying, the other
is by enforcing a monopoly over the control of copying (copyright). One
is a natural barrier, the other is artificial. (cf the cost of the next Harry
Potter novel vs the cost of a Shakespeare play in book form - one reflects
just the costs of copying and distribution)
> I stated that people do not need to pay for the media they enjoy, DUE TO IT
> NOT BEING A SCARCE RESOURCE.
>
> (sorry for the capitals but you missed it on lower case so I wrote it
> in big letters).
You don't need to shout about it. I'd accepted that copying was not a scarce
resource as a basic premise. Might be worth re-reading what I wrote in that
light.
Now as I say above, this finite resource now needs to work on something else -
I'll answer anything else in my own time, if I have time.
If you get my point, good, if you don't - sorry :-)
Michael.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
