We just take the consumer surplus from all the people who would have paid $22 anyway.
No, more people would definitely buy it, for instance, all the people who thought it was worth $20 but not $22. And all the people who thought it were worth $18, or $10, or $5…
The consumer surplus is any amount they would have spent over $22. Taking that extra amount still leaves them worse off, despite their willingness to pay that amount. Doesn’t it?
I don’t understand how this would play out then. Can you explain in a little more detail who is paying what and why they would pay that amount? Why does one person pay a different amount than a different person? When person A finds out person B paid a different amount that will influence their perception of what they are willing to pay.
They were going to buy it anyway at $22, yielding the hypothetical profits for Disney in the first place.
It won’t play out. It’s purpose is to illustrate that the current situation has this problem.
You used this example to illustrate why the current copyright system has problems, but the problem is that your example does not clearly illustrate why it has problems.
That’s what I’m asking - I know it’s hypothetical, but you implied the one time payment from someone (not sure who exactly) would increase social welfare (allowing at least one person to be better off without making any other person worse off) and I’m not following why your example supports your position.
My gut says someone will be worse off in the situation which is why I asked for specifics.
The people who would have paid the copyright-price anyway, and as much as they would have under that scheme, which we assume is the correct amount because that’s what has been suggested to me by copyright supporters (that it rewards creators right)
All the people who wanted Alice in Wonderland but didn’t want to pay $22 for it, but would have been willing to pay more than the market price (20, 19, 18$…). They are better off because they have a DVD of Alice in Wonderland they valued above what they paid for it.
Hopefully we’ve realigned your gut. 
But this gets tricky.
A person values an item relative to other options around them. Knowledge that other people paid less for this item and/or comparable items (which is unique to each individual) will alter the calculations of value for X% of the people. If they know they can get Susan in Wonderland for $1 instead of Alice in Wonderland for $22, they may be perfectly happy with the former and no longer value Alice at $22.
It might sound like splitting hairs, but human psychology is a big part of all of this, it’s not a simple linear formula regarding value irrespective of the economic system they are in.
First, reread the argument. If I assumed that you did not want to encourage innovation the whole thing would be pointless, and I explicitly built that in as an assumption. What I was trying to show that given the now fact that you do want to encourage innovation (which I never denied and never doubted) the granting of a monopoly is one way of achieving this goal.
Glad you noticed your solution doesn’t work. But not having a copyright makes plenty of people worse off - those who create and don’t get paid for it, and those who will miss out on art that would not be created without copyright protection.
I already addressed this. Your cite includes patents, and I showed how patents and copyrights are different. This whole copyright does not give a monopoly discussion came directly from this.
Okay. And what do you call it when they save even the $2 because Disney did not choose to release the DVD? Now, for this particular example, I think it can be argued that this product is old enough that the costs have been recovered and it should be going out of copyright a lot sooner than it will under current laws. I’m far more interested in say, John Carter as an example. Something new.
I didn’t respond, but that is a terrible idea for some of the reasons mentioned. Patents may not be of immediate value, especially to a small inventor. Thus a patent which might be valuable in five years could be bought for a song now by someone able to wait. Also, most patents are of value only in a larger context. Copyright auctions have the same problem. Established authors would do fine, but many would get screwed the way Siegel and Schuster were screwed on Superman.
Mine isn’t. To repeat - where does the money come from? If from the purchasers, they are no better off. If from the government, taxpayers who don’t want the DVD are subsidizing those who do. Those who don’t buy many DVDs (like me) will be subsidizing those who do buy DVDs. Or is the Fed printing it, is it raining pennies from heaven, or is it growing on trees?
Right. There are opportunity costs. So we can’t say that the person that would pay $18 for a DVD that is now priced at $2 has exactly $16 of benefit. You’re welcome to suppose that the people that did value it at $22 only did so for the status symbol, which it no longer has. But if you believe they exist at $22 for people who won’t buy it because they value it at $21, why do you not assume they exist at $2 for people who’d only pay $1.50?
It does, but if there’s one thing I’m used to on the dope, it is people refusing to engage in hypothetical situations in normal ways. (I do it, too.)
I don’t think this is a very fair comment.
Even though it’s a hypothetical, to show that the current system is not optimized the hypothetical must be realizable in some way and result in better optimization. This requires walking through the pluses and minuses and trying top get a feel for the two formulas being compared.
Did I say you are just plain wrong? Nope. I asked questions and stated it gets tricky and haven’t even come to a conclusion myself because it’s still a little fuzzy how to create the formula in both cases.
The plusses offered were the benefits to the creators. What was not mentioned were benefits to people paying the copyright price that were related to bragging rights, or other things.
<loud quibble> Optimization means the best. If you have optimized something, you cannot have better optimization.
Sorry, I did research in an area that had been called optimization and which we managed to change to being called improvement. </quibble>
Aside from that, I agree.
Well, if everyone is in agreement that moving the goalposts is a totally normal tactic that isn’t unfair at all, then please discuss the matter amongst yourselves. I have nothing more to contribute.
I would like to ask a question:
In todays environment, had nobody ever heard of the concept of a library, what do you think the odds of them being made legal would be?
Libraries are pretty much a case of massive state sanctioned piracy. Dozens or hundreds of people get to enjoy a particular work for next to no reimbursement to the owners.
In todays political climate, what are the odds the 1st sale doctrine would be established?
The 1st sale doctrine is again nothing but massive state sanctioned piracy, allowing continued redistribution of a copyright holders goods. Entire business models rely on taking money directly out of the hands of content creators.
We as a society tolerate a whole host of methods for accessing content for free, because we’ve been doing it for a long, long time. Someone going to a library isn’t robbing the content creators of their well deserved profits, they are being fiscally responsible. Someone downloading a torrent for the same reason viewed as one step up from a criminal.
I don’t mind the concept of copyright. It is important to ensure people can profit from their endeavors, but the industry has got to adapt, especially the movie and TV industries. I’d be perfectly content giving them money if they make it convenient for me to do so. When piracy gives me a better product, their model has broken. The music industry has for the most part seen the light, offering high quality downloads for a reasonable price, or if you prefer, streaming services for a few bucks a month.
Here is my solution: All the laws remain as they are. For, oh… $100 a month, you can pay a fee, and be immune to any lawsuits regarding copyright violation. That $100 gets distributed to all the game/movie/music/book/etc companies. They’ll get $1200 a year from me. Easily more than they get from me now, but I’d gladly pay it for the convenience.
“current system is not optimized the hypothetical must be realizable in some way and result in better optimization.”
As you clearly failed to notice, my statement of “not optimizED” is correct usage as well as “better optimization” in which “optimization” is a process, and because I didn’t use the word “optimizED” in that case it means the end point was not arrived at.
If you are going to try to correct someone:
A) make it worthwhile
B) be correct not wrong, it works better that way
Please ignore my last post, I just wasn’t in the mood to read that particular quibble this morning.
I didn’t object to “not optimized.”
Oops, never mind. I hope you have a more optimal morning tomorrow. 
So, let’s walk through erislover’s hypothetical and see where it leads us.
Year 1, Alice in Wonderland released for $22
Person Willing to Pay Did Pay
A $34 $22
B $22 $22
C $18 $0
D $14 $0
E $5 $0
Year 5, Alice in Wonderland price dropped to $10
Person Willing to Pay Did Pay
A n/a $22
B n/a $22
C $0 $0
D $8 $0
E $15 $10
Total $ to Disney=54
Under hypothetical, Person A+B+E pay for a total of $54
And then what happens erislover? Person C and D get the DVD for free? or is some other price set for them? If some other price, how is that price arrived at?
How many people can make use of a book from the library at one time? One.
It matches the model for physical goods and that’s why it’s considered ok.
Piracy doesn’t give you a better product. Without Disney there is no product.
By your thinking local car thieves also give me a better product than Toyota because they are able to sell me a Toyota for much less than Toyota can even manufacture the car. Those thieves are geniuses.
I missed this post.
How about help us understand where the goalposts are? I’m still trying to understand how to properly compare your hypothetical to today, and for some reason you are just bailing out of the conversation.
I am confused.