On 7/31/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> Well, if they're suckers enough to buy over-priced goods, let 'em
> have them! Prices are determined by what the market will bear, if I
> am not mistaken.
In this case, you are mistaken. Prices for copyrighted goods are determined, in large measure, by the market power artificially created by the exclusive right. The goods are over-priced because the law creates artificial scarcity. The question in this thread is how much we should allow publishers to exploit, as you put it, the "suckers."
> Rolex sells a lot of $10,000 watches. But "consumers" (how I hate
> that word!) often purchase goods through the most efficient channels
> of distribution and sales.
The point of this discussion is that copyright legally precludes consumers from purchasing through the most efficient channels of distribution and sales -- in fact, that is what it is for.
> If Simon and Schuster can sell the latest Stephen King novel at $10
> and Little, Brown want $30 for the same thing, guess who gets the sale!
It is impossible to guess, given the information you have provided, as it will depend upon consumer preference. If Simon & Schuster is offering a hardback edition, perhaps signed by the author, they will "get the sale" to consumers who prefer to pay the higher price for the slightly enhanced version of the good -- a common form of price discrimination.
> The trouble with this is that publishers don't really compete on
> price, but on authors.
This is a question of substitutability, since (unlike your hypothetical above) copyright effectively precludes the publishers from offering identical goods.
> Mr Burk's line of reasoning is, therefore, all wet.
That is entirely possible, but you would be more persuasive if you would demonstrate this by actually addressing the reasoning, rather than by simply declaring it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT