David Turner schrieb am Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 01:29:39PM -0500: > On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 05:50, Pete Chown wrote: > > > With DVDs we have a complex situation. Supposedly studios can make more > > per film, so they can afford to make more marginal films. > > To make films which will not make money is not an economically rational > action even if one is making other films which do make money. This is > the point the 17 economists made in their Eldred amicus.
It depends. In not-so-simple-scenarios, one may use it on behalf of PR (attracting people to one's product portfolio) or bind a promising new director who will later create a big profit-making film. Studios and publishers use the latter quite frequently I guess. If a product is definitely beyond any profit, it won't get produced by market forces, thus resulting in a pure common good. Society may then agree upon whether it wants that good to be produced anyway, paying it with taxes, presumably. You can see this with theatre, arts, opera etc. This is "economically rational" as well but works outside markets only. Don't mix rationality and market forces. [ The same applies to goods where a producer is not able to discriminate usage. If he cannot prevent some people (e.g. those who have not paid) to use his product, nobody would pay for it, everyone would freeride. A common example is the ordinary lamp post: How can I prevent someone using its light? As a consequence, market forces won't provide the public with street light, so it (the public) had to agree to pay taxes such that the community could set up the lamps. From an economic point of view, excessive copying could result into a situation where music/films become common goods because no one is able to prevent others from using it. Exit Labels/Studios/Publish- ers. (Just to summarize the very obvious, excuses.) ] Regards, Birger T�dtmann
msg03314/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
