Suppose the following was true:There exists no IP law. A talented director, called James Cameron shoots a film called Avatar which cost more than $ 200 million to produce and $ 150 million to market. The production company sells a copy to a cinema owner. Now other cinema owners approach him and ask him to make copies of the film and sell it to them for a lower price than the production company charges. (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.)
The production company just sells three copies to cinemas, all the rest are copies made by cinema owners. So millions of people come watching the film in cinemas all over the world but the production company won't profit from it. The company gets bankrupt, and no one ever dares to shoot such an expensive film again. Since then, there are only extremely low-budget productions on the market.
Many of the elderly often tell their disbelieving children and grandchildren of the "Golden Age of Movies", when films cost hundreds of millions and entertained the masses.
So, tell me, why should that not happen?
Tobbog:Many of the elderly often tell their disbelieving children and grandchildren of the "Golden Age of Movies", when films cost hundreds of millions and entertained the masses.
The Golden Age of Propaganda, where Hollywood deluded the masses.
One could argue, that the costs to produce films would be lower on a free market; or that there was a breach of contract somewhere, so they could sue for damage, but there is a better point:
How Antitrust Ruined the Movies
The article points out a very logical solution for a movie company - to own (or co-own) the cinemas in question, and so profit directly from their movies with little risk of a copy getting out. But as the article's name hints, this may not be possible.
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
It's already being done: the difference is that copies are posted on the Internet free of charge instead of being sold to other cinema owners for a profit. What's the point of paying a cinema ticket when you can see it free of charge in the comfort of your own home?
Kakugo: It's already being done: the difference is that copies are posted on the Internet free of charge instead of being sold to other cinema owners for a profit. What's the point of paying a cinema ticket when you can see it free of charge in the comfort of your own home?
Well, watching a movie in cinema is a totally different experience from watching it at home. I mean, why should people ever bother to go to cinemas, when they can wait a year until they can watch the film at home for free? Because it's just not the same.
Tobbog:Well, watching a movie in cinema is a totally different experience from watching it at home. I mean, why should people ever bother to go to cinemas, when they can wait a year until they can watch the film at home for free? Because it's just not the same.
Yeah, and the move towards using more 3D (like surround sound before) is part of that tactic - to make the movie experience more worth in a cinema. In the end, it resembles what the Linux companies do - even if the product itself is available for free, they earn for providing services with added value.
Hmm, IP is legit so long as it is voluntarily agreed upon, so that if you bought a CD that said "copying this is a breach of contract" it would be illegal to do so. However if i downloaded the songs from that CD from you, I haven't agreed to any contract with the record label and am not in violation of any laws.
Just for kicks.... I hate Hollywood movies. Pi was made for 50,000 dollars. Sorry it doesn't have jessica alba riding a motorcycle while shooting backwards at America's enemies.
Snowflake: However if i downloaded the songs from that CD from you, I haven't agreed to any contract with the record label and am not in violation of any laws.
A thief doesn't have a contract with his victim either.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Peter Sidor: Tobbog:Well, watching a movie in cinema is a totally different experience from watching it at home. I mean, why should people ever bother to go to cinemas, when they can wait a year until they can watch the film at home for free? Because it's just not the same. Yeah, and the move towards using more 3D (like surround sound before) is part of that tactic - to make the movie experience more worth in a cinema. In the end, it resembles what the Linux companies do - even if the product itself is available for free, they earn for providing services with added value.
That's how the theatre makes money, not how the movie production makes money. Why would a theatre ever pay for movies when it can just bribe the production company's employees for a perfect copy?
Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.)
(Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.)
How exactly does IP prevent that from happening?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening?
Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished.
Tobbog: Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished.
You mean competitors can be punished. It's a great protectionist racket.
Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished.
That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry?
Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished. That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry?
Humans in general think of ideas and information they possess as being property that is owned by them...how are you going to force them to stop thinking like that and force them to agree with you? Your desire to defend the hacker against the company that has had data stolen is contradictory to liberty and property.
Daniel Muffinburg:Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry?
If their horses and buggies were being robbed, we should.
liberty student: Tobbog: Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished. You mean competitors can be punished. It's a great protectionist racket.
No, not competitors. Every competitor is free to shoot his own movie and distribute it to cinemas. I wouldn't call someone who copies a film and distributes it himself a competitor.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry? If their horses and buggies were being robbed, we should.
What about "stealing" the idea to jump onto a horse and ride it around town?
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished. That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry? Humans in general think of ideas and information they possess as being property that is owned by them...how are you going to force them to stop thinking like that and force them to agree with you? Your desire to defend the hacker against the company that has had data stolen is contradictory to liberty and property.
Wut? When did I express that desire?
Tobbog:So, tell me, why should that not happen?
Because actors, directors, and everyone involved in making the movie avatar were grossly over paid. If james cameron was making the same amount of money as say a janitor like he should be, given that the tired predictable drivel that leaked out of his brain still made it to the big screen, then who gives a crap if someone copies your movie. The major expense would be in the creation of a theater not the creation of the movie.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry? If their horses and buggies were being robbed, we should. What about "stealing" the idea to jump onto a horse and ride it around town?
You don't need to ride on a horse and buggy to arrive at that idea (otherwise how would the first horse and buggy company have done it?), and anyway that's not protectionism of outdated industries, which was your prior argument.
twistedbydsign99:Because actors, directors, and everyone involved in making the movie avatar were grossly over paid. If james cameron was making the same amount of money as say janitor like he should be, given that the tired predictable drivel that leaked out of his brain still made it to the big screen, then who gives a crap if someone copies your movie.
So the cat is out of the bag. Intellectual communism, like all other forms of communism, is the result of jealousy and anger at the success of others.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry? If their horses and buggies were being robbed, we should. What about "stealing" the idea to jump onto a horse and ride it around town? You don't need to ride on a horse and buggy to arrive at that idea (otherwise how would the first horse and buggy company have done it?), and anyway that's not protectionism of outdated industries, which was your prior argument.
My claim wasn't about protecting out-dated industries. Instead, it was about protecting industries that would otherwise be bankrupt, whether or not they are out-dated.
Stranger: twistedbydsign99:Because actors, directors, and everyone involved in making the movie avatar were grossly over paid. If james cameron was making the same amount of money as say janitor like he should be, given that the tired predictable drivel that leaked out of his brain still made it to the big screen, then who gives a crap if someone copies your movie. So the cat is out of the bag. Intellectual communism, like all other forms of communism, is the result of jealousy and anger at the success of others.
Thus, the cry in favor of IP.
Daniel Muffinburg: My claim wasn't about protecting out-dated industries. Instead, it was about protecting industries that would otherwise be bankrupt, whether or not they are out-dated.
Many industries would go bankrupt if they had to self-produce their security, and all industries would go bankrupt if thieves were protected by the state.
Stranger:So the cat is out of the bag. Intellectual communism, like all other forms of communism, is the result of jealousy and anger at the success of others.
The idea, script content, art as it is preceived, and title of "avatar" do not belong to anyone. The physical by products of making the movie do. Because people are allowed to have a monopoly on the use of an idea, they are grossly over paid. Its not the other way around, that I think they are grossly over paid therefore there is no ip. No, there is no ip therefore grossly overpaid.
No, they wouldn't go bankrupt since all pirate copiers would be forced to go out of business. And since, as a cinema, you can't hide from public like a drug dealer, a cinema that collaborates with pirate copiers would be easily identifiable and hence wouldn't dare violating IP law.
The horse and buggy industry went out of business, because competition delivered a way better product: automobiles. In the case of IP, however, "competition" wouldn't deliver a better product, just a cheaper one. And the only reason they can have it cheaper is, because they didn't have any production expenses. Therefore, if pirate copiers were free to go into business with cinemas and consumers, they would, step by step, kill their host, the film industry, like parasites, whereas the car industry can perfectly prosper with or without any buggy factory
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: twistedbydsign99:Because actors, directors, and everyone involved in making the movie avatar were grossly over paid. If james cameron was making the same amount of money as say janitor like he should be, given that the tired predictable drivel that leaked out of his brain still made it to the big screen, then who gives a crap if someone copies your movie. So the cat is out of the bag. Intellectual communism, like all other forms of communism, is the result of jealousy and anger at the success of others. Thus, the cry in favor of IP.
What exactly prevented you all from making a movie like Avatar before Cameron? Was it IP law, or your own deficient skills?
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: My claim wasn't about protecting out-dated industries. Instead, it was about protecting industries that would otherwise be bankrupt, whether or not they are out-dated. Many industries would go bankrupt if they had to self-produce their security, and all industries would go bankrupt if thieves were protected by the state.
You lost me.
Tobbog: The horse and buggy industry went out of business, because competition delivered a way better product: automobiles. In the case of IP, however, "competition" wouldn't deliver a better product, just a cheaper one. And the only reason they can have it cheaper is, because they didn't have any production expenses. Therefore, if pirate copiers were free to go into business with cinemas and consumers, they would, step by step, kill their host, the film industry, like parasites, whereas the car industry can perfectly prosper with or without any buggy factory
I tried this argument before. Like all communists, they don't care who will suffer or how much as a result of their principles. They simply want free stuff now and think private property is unfair.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: twistedbydsign99:Because actors, directors, and everyone involved in making the movie avatar were grossly over paid. If james cameron was making the same amount of money as say janitor like he should be, given that the tired predictable drivel that leaked out of his brain still made it to the big screen, then who gives a crap if someone copies your movie. So the cat is out of the bag. Intellectual communism, like all other forms of communism, is the result of jealousy and anger at the success of others. Thus, the cry in favor of IP. What exactly prevented you all from making a movie like Avatar before Cameron? Was it IP law, or your own deficient skills?
I hadn't conceived of the idea, so neither. Btw, where are you going with this?
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: My claim wasn't about protecting out-dated industries. Instead, it was about protecting industries that would otherwise be bankrupt, whether or not they are out-dated. Many industries would go bankrupt if they had to self-produce their security, and all industries would go bankrupt if thieves were protected by the state. You lost me.
No I didn't. It's the basic principle of the division of labor applied to protecting property rights.
Daniel Muffinburg: I hadn't conceived of the idea, so neither. Btw, where are you going with this?
Bullshit. All we've heard on this topic for weeks is that Avatar is just the story of Pocahontas retold. The idea has been around forever.
Why did you not make Avatar before Cameron?
Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished. That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry? No, they wouldn't go bankrupt since all pirate copiers would be forced to go out of business.
No, they wouldn't go bankrupt since all pirate copiers would be forced to go out of business.
After or before they have pirated? If it is after they have pirated, then they have already done the damage.
Tobbog: And since, as a cinema, you can't hide from public like a drug dealer, a cinema that collaborates with pirate copiers would be easily identifiable and hence wouldn't dare violating IP law.
And since, as a cinema, you can't hide from public like a drug dealer, a cinema that collaborates with pirate copiers would be easily identifiable and hence wouldn't dare violating IP law.
Why wouldn't the same be true without IP?
Tobbog:The horse and buggy industry went out of business, because competition delivered a way better product: automobiles. In the case of IP, however, "competition" wouldn't deliver a better product, just a cheaper one. And the only reason they can have it cheaper is, because they didn't have any production expenses. Therefore, if pirate copiers were free to go into business with cinemas and consumers, they would, step by step, kill their host, the film industry, like parasites, whereas the car industry can perfectly prosper with or without any buggy factory
Quality is subjective and there is always opportunity costs. There would be a cost for acquiring the pirated movie. Please rewrite your statement fixing the these flaws in your argument.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: My claim wasn't about protecting out-dated industries. Instead, it was about protecting industries that would otherwise be bankrupt, whether or not they are out-dated. Many industries would go bankrupt if they had to self-produce their security, and all industries would go bankrupt if thieves were protected by the state. You lost me. No I didn't. It's the basic principle of the division of labor applied to protecting property rights.
You lost me in the sense that it is a non sequitur. What was the connection from my comment to yours?
Stranger:Why did you not make Avatar before Cameron?
He did, he just wasn't first to the patent office. gg.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: My claim wasn't about protecting out-dated industries. Instead, it was about protecting industries that would otherwise be bankrupt, whether or not they are out-dated. Many industries would go bankrupt if they had to self-produce their security, and all industries would go bankrupt if thieves were protected by the state. You lost me. No I didn't. It's the basic principle of the division of labor applied to protecting property rights. You lost me in the sense that it is a non sequitur. What was the connection from my comment to yours?
That the fact that protecting theft destroys an industry is not an argument against property rights, it is an argument in favor.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: I hadn't conceived of the idea, so neither. Btw, where are you going with this? Bullshit. All we've heard on this topic for weeks is that Avatar is just the story of Pocahontas retold.
Bullshit. All we've heard on this topic for weeks is that Avatar is just the story of Pocahontas retold.
Because although the story may be the same, Pocahontas wasn't in 3D, therefore, they are, at least, slightly different.
Stranger:The idea has been around forever.
Even before the existence of humans?
I already answered that. Btw, why didn't you make Avatar before Cameron?
twistedbydsign99: Stranger:Why did you not make Avatar before Cameron? He did, he just wasn't first to the patent office. gg.
They never went to the patent office for Avatar. The state wasn't involved at all.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: My claim wasn't about protecting out-dated industries. Instead, it was about protecting industries that would otherwise be bankrupt, whether or not they are out-dated. Many industries would go bankrupt if they had to self-produce their security, and all industries would go bankrupt if thieves were protected by the state. You lost me. No I didn't. It's the basic principle of the division of labor applied to protecting property rights. You lost me in the sense that it is a non sequitur. What was the connection from my comment to yours? That the fact that protecting theft destroys an industry is not an argument against property rights, it is an argument in favor.
Okay.
Are you saying that IP protects private property rights?
Daniel Muffinburg: Because although the story may be the same, Pocahontas wasn't in 3D, therefore, they are, at least, slightly different.
The idea of 3d movies has been around for decades. You are still bullshitting us.
I'll settle this so you don't continue to play innocent. You did not make Avatar because Avatar is a good, and like all goods in a world of scarcity it must be produced. Simply having the idea of a good does not bring it to reality. To produce a good takes skill labor and capital, and you have neither of those, which is why you do not constantly release blockbuster films. However, you do feel that you are entitled to having goods for free. That idea, like all other ideas, is worthless.