On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ian Grigg wrote:
See also the work of Eric Hughes, John Walker, the AMIX, Robin Hanson
and others.
Believe me, they're all known to me and properly appreciated.
Well, the problem is that you are asking too much of one OS. If you
want stability, use FreeBSD (we do). If you
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, 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.
Luckily movie industry will not be hit by the free
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 Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
Property does not always consist of physical goods.
Of course not. Am I not making this precise point?
To use some of your examples, the polical process involves votes, which
are the property of the person casting the ballots, likewise, at least
in this
--
James A. Donald:
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
everything.
At 10:25 AM 7/4/02 +0300, Mikko Sdreld wrote:
Luckily movie industry will not be hit by the free distribution as bad
as
music industry. This is because a major portion of their money comes
from
people going to cinema to see the movies. They don't do that because
they
don't have a copy at home,
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A moment ago you were arguing maximum utility (your public good
argument).
I was still arguing precisely the same point. If the personal decision
calculus of the individuals leads them to freeride, it will also lead them
to prefer access to old stuff
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
-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
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
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
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
There's been some recent discussion of ethics and markets relating to
copyright prompted by the Orwellian sounding overtones of the latest
Microsoft powergrab.
Seems about time to replay my periodic reminder that copyright is not
a black-and-white moral issue, it is merely a societal convention
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
--
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 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 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 8:41 PM +0200 on 7/2/02, AAA, our Anonymous Austrian Amphibolizer
blathers:
If it's encrypted, and it's on my hard drive, than it's my
property. I own it, not someone else. That's a private good. I can
turn around, and sell it to you. You can
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 8:41 PM +0200 on 7/2/02, AAA, our Anonymous Austrian Amphibolizer
blathers:
If it's encrypted, and it's on my hard drive, than it's my
property. I own it, not someone else. That's a private good. I can
turn around, and sell it to you. You can
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
