Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Mar 2010 21:59 UTC
Multimedia, AV "A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders, and some computers arrive with this software preinstalled. This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like. Unfortunately for them, it ain't so."
Thread beginning with comment 411938
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Greed
by lemur2 on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Greed"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"...This is the precise logical disconnect with IP laws. How exactly does artificially restricting and penalising users create value or reward anyone? The fact that there is no value added for users in the first place is the precise reason why there needs to be more and more draconian laws. Once the initial investment in research effort has been paid for, under what perverse moral code is it still valid to fleece users thereafter?...
You are making the mistake of equating value with price. The two are not the same. Not by a long shot. The value of a copy of software differs for different people. Think of the value of a copy of software as the maximum amount one would pay for it if that was the only way one could acquire the software. The price is normally set at the level at which profits are maximised. Now, in economic theory, you have a downward sloping demand curve because at lower prices, more people will purchase the product because the perceived value of the product equals or exceeds the price. In economic terms again, those who value the software highly get a larger benefit because the value far exceeds the price. This is known in economics as the consumer surplus. What the artificial scarcity does is allow the producer of the software to capture more of the consumer surplus, and this is a valid way to encourage creation of such software works. This is the thinking behind copyright laws in general. "

If we step away from deluded "economic thinking" mumbo-jumbo for a second, and examine exactly what circumstances it can possibly benefit society to pay back year-after-year many times the amount being invested in something ... we would come up blank.

What you are trying to say actually makes no sense at all in the light of day.

Also, in the normal situation with IP and ROI, there is a small extra cost imposed on the initial purchase of something. Take a digital TV as an example, which may well have patented technology embedded in it. No-one is charged every time they watch the TV, once the TV is purchased, it is purchased.

So how come producers of codecs get to charge per use, and society pays hundreds of millions year upon year?

Edited 2010-03-03 02:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Greed
by mkone on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:44 in reply to "RE[6]: Greed"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

If we step away from deluded "economic thinking" mumbo-jumbo for a second, and examine exactly what circumstances it can possibly benefit society to pay back year-after-year many times the amount being invested in something ... we would come up blank.

What you are trying to say actually makes no sense at all in the light of day.

Also, in the normal situation with IP and ROI, there is a small extra cost imposed on the initial purchase of something. Take a digital TV as an example, which may well have patented technology embedded in it. No-one is charged every time they watch the TV, once the TV is purchased, it is purchased.

So how come producers of codecs get to charge per use, and society pays hundreds of millions year upon year?


Everything sounds like mumbo-jumbo if you do not understand it.

There are many valid reasons why something with a very small investment reaps huge rewards. One of these reasons is that the overall benefit to society far exceeds the initial investment. Another is that there is a huge chance of failure, so there is a good chance your invention will not find traction and therefore you will lose your investment.

Free markets say nothing about what the 'right' return for any given amount of investment should be. Free markets do not concern themselves with that.

Restricting availability of IP can encourage people to create works because the creators can be paid, and society benefits as a whole. In the case of codecs, if we can't restrict the codecs, then we can have a situation where one company licenses the codecs and maybe starts encoding video for content creators, thereby undercutting the original inventor who may not be able to afford to buy equipment for this purpose.

Allowing royalties is actually a good way of paying the creator. The more videos that are encoded, the more people watching, the more value society obtains therefore it is fair that the creator gets paid more. This argument is valid for patents, software and other creative works (music, etc).

Your TV analogy doesn't make sense. And even then, you will find a lot of IP in those TVs were someone or some company is paid per each TV sold. so the more useful the invention/creation, the more used it is, and the more money the creator makes.

Reply Parent Score: 1