Zero Sum Games
Thread and Full Text View
[View full text and thread]
|10/12/2000 10:01 PM by Chris Rasch; Would consumers benefit from a monopoly on the "Disneyland Experience?"|
I thought the RIAA's position was that the technology of Napster makes it impossible to determine if a user actually owns the CD which he downloads from N, thus allowing theft.
|10/12/2000 03:02 PM by doug bennett; counterfeit Disneyland admissions|
If I can not only re-sell my Disneyland admission ticket, but make copies of it that cannot be distinguished from the real thing, and I am allowed to hang around the D parking lot (i.e. compete in the same spatial and temporal market with the true owners), even if I have to give some hypocritical disclaimer like "these are to be used for entertainment purposes only": Would not this have an influence on the decision to build (future) amusement parks?
That is the analogy to the Napster case.
If I can re-sell Disneyland admissions, it makes it hard for D to price-discriminate. [Manage messages]
Our argument is that downstream licensing should not be allowed. That is, AFTER you buy something, you should be free to do with as you wish. The Disneyland analogy is not that Disneyland should not be able to charge for admission, but [View full text and thread]
Technology is such that there is a large fixed cost to produce a CD, then a tiny cost to make additional copies. A person paying zero for a copy does not
deprive the seller of the chance to sell to another person at a positive cost, as [View full text and thread]