Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold book

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:57 am UTC

We are clearly at a position of an insufficiency of information about what happened. My position is based on these two premises, which I again acknowledge may not have been the case, but usually are.

1. Large successful corporations main goal is to maximize their profits
2. Large successful corporations are exceptionally good at making decisions which maximize their profits

I think it is very much more likely that not providing the drugs, at a loss or otherwise maximized their profits.

And I think that what I understand you to be suggesting, that their motive was not profit, or that they made a mistake in judgement and providing drugs at a loss, would have actually maximized their profits as exceedingly unlikely.

So with hindsight, do we have any evidence to suggest, selling drugs at a loss, in this particular circumstance could have increased their bottom line?

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:04 pm UTC

Among other things, I am suggesting that the bottom line is always beneficial to us (exclusive), but not always beneficial to us (inclusive) and that the bottom line is not an end in itself.

Edit: typo
Last edited by Iulus Cofield on Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:05 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:We need to make sure the laws are set up so corporations can maximize their profits. The more money they take out of your pocket, the better off society will be. So anything that lets them charge you as much as you can possibly afford, is good.

Agreed?

No, you crazy son of a bitch
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby HungryHobo » Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:48 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:So with hindsight, do we have any evidence to suggest, selling drugs at a loss, in this particular circumstance could have increased their bottom line?

Well a simple approach since I believe the drug is now out of patent is to see what price the generics are for a 7 day sleeping sickness treatment which would let you estimate the real production costs.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby yurell » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:00 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:Well a simple approach since I believe the drug is now out of patent is to see what price the generics are for a 7 day sleeping sickness treatment which would let you estimate the real production costs.


Because of the protectionist laws in the US, the price of generic drugs when they come out of patent tends not to be much cheaper than the named version for many drugs; I'm reminded of a case of migraine medication that was significantly (more than a factor of two) more expensive in the US than it was in the UK. So there's clearly more to the price of a medication than the production, even when it comes to generics.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby HungryHobo » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:20 pm UTC

yurell wrote: So there's clearly more to the price of a medication than the production, even when it comes to generics.

Pick the lowest price in any country where it isn't subsidised to get the closest to the real production cost.

The point is to find the upper bound for the production costs.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:25 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:1. Large successful corporations main goal is to maximize their profits
2. Large successful corporations are exceptionally good at making decisions which maximize their profits



Rebuttal in two words: New Coke.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:1. Large successful corporations main goal is to maximize their profits
2. Large successful corporations have thus far been exceptionally good at making decisions which maximize their profits
If large successful corporations didn't have such a habit of making the occasional really stupid decision that lost them tons of money, you might have a case for changing the verb tense on your 2nd point.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:03 pm UTC

Many large successful corporations are incredibly short-sighted.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby PolakoVoador » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:25 pm UTC

Yeah, huge successful corporations never make stupid decisions that hurt them badly.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:25 pm UTC

It would appear I am in a minority here, perhaps even alone, in thinking large successful corporations usually have become what they are through prudent and pragmatic decision making.

But perhaps everyone here is right, and they are as useless at making good decisions as the rest of the public and are just throwing darts at a dart board. :-/ And a handful of examples of poor decisions, definitively proves the later.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:04 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:It would appear I am in a minority here, perhaps even alone, in thinking large successful corporations usually have become what they are through prudent and pragmatic decision making.

But perhaps everyone here is right, and they are as useless at making good decisions as the rest of the public and are just throwing darts at a dart board. :-/ And a handful of examples of poor decisions, definitively proves the later.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. They might have made several good decisions in the past, but that doesn't guarantee future performance.

But of course, you also seem to be completely dismissing luck as a factor, which makes your thinking wrong or at least woefully incomplete. After all, the winner of a fair-coin-flip-calling tournament has become what she is through the incredibly accurate coin-flip calls, but that doesn't mean she's any more likely than anyone else to win her next toss.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:36 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:It would appear I am in a minority here, perhaps even alone, in thinking large successful corporations usually have become what they are through prudent and pragmatic decision making.

But perhaps everyone here is right, and they are as useless at making good decisions as the rest of the public and are just throwing darts at a dart board. :-/ And a handful of examples of poor decisions, definitively proves the later.

My point wasn't that corporations are blindly throwing darts, it's that they're consistently overvaluing short-term gains and undervaluing long-term health.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
But of course, you also seem to be completely dismissing luck as a factor, which makes your thinking wrong or at least woefully incomplete. After all, the winner of a fair-coin-flip-calling tournament has become what she is through the incredibly accurate coin-flip calls, but that doesn't mean she's any more likely than anyone else to win her next toss.


Not discussing luck does not mean I have dismissed it. Its always a problem when people make assumptions about what others haven't said.

In order to create a large successful corporation luck is of course a huge part of it I would expect one needs great skills and a great work ethic to make something like Boeing successful AND need the comet to have installed square windows. Luck or skills may not be sufficient on their own, I expect both are required and even then one might not be successful.

But it would be awesome if you would make more assumptions about what I think.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. They might have made several good decisions in the past, but that doesn't guarantee future performance.


This is of course true. I do expect a very strong relationship though.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:32 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:It would appear I am in a minority here, perhaps even alone, in thinking large successful corporations usually have become what they are through prudent and pragmatic decision making.

But perhaps everyone here is right, and they are as useless at making good decisions as the rest of the public and are just throwing darts at a dart board. :-/ And a handful of examples of poor decisions, definitively proves the later.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. They might have made several good decisions in the past, but that doesn't guarantee future performance.

But of course, you also seem to be completely dismissing luck as a factor, which makes your thinking wrong or at least woefully incomplete.


To expand on this point, I think you can make a pretty apt analogy with evolution. A species that has existed for a long time without much or any change is by no means proof that the species is inherently good at survival and in fact can be in a very precarious position. As it turns out, evolution happens the fastest when something cataclysmic happens that nearly wipes out the species entirely, thus meaning the survivors probably all carried some trait that made them immune or resistant to the calamity. On the other hand, the survivors may have just been in a lucky spot that was shielded from the calamity in some way and the species carries on just as it did before and just as vulnerable to future disaster. When you define success as continued survival, the standards are shockingly low for such a cutthroat world.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Arariel » Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:11 am UTC

I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution. You want the government to let the corporations rent seek?

And really, more profits != better for everyone. For example, in a competitive market, if price is higher than the average total cost, economic profit is made which entices entrance into the market. This represents a rightward shift of the supply curve. Rightward shift of the supply curve results in lower prices and higher quantity exchanged. Lower prices mean fewer economic profits (and the supply curve continues to shift right until all the profits are normal, that is, zero). But there's a higher total surplus, higher quantity exchanged, and society is better off.

In any event, government would do right to leave the market well enough alone, leaving no artificial barriers to entry, in order to allow the free market to allocate resources efficiently.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:55 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:To expand on this point, I think you can make a pretty apt analogy with evolution. A species that has existed for a long time without much or any change is by no means proof that the species is inherently good at survival and in fact can be in a very precarious position. As it turns out, evolution happens the fastest when something cataclysmic happens that nearly wipes out the species entirely, thus meaning the survivors probably all carried some trait that made them immune or resistant to the calamity. On the other hand, the survivors may have just been in a lucky spot that was shielded from the calamity in some way and the species carries on just as it did before and just as vulnerable to future disaster. When you define success as continued survival, the standards are shockingly low for such a cutthroat world.
Yeah, even if BattleMoose is 100% correct about why currently successful corporations have become so, and in an evolutionary sense they are supremely adapted to their current niches, something new or unexpected could still quite easily wipe them out, so to speak. Their existing strategies, which have served so well in the past, could backfire spectacularly in a different economic environment.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:19 am UTC

Arariel wrote:I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution.

How about violation of basic human rights? When left to its own devices, the private sector doesn't exactly have a stellar track record in this department
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Fire Brns » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:30 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
Arariel wrote:I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution.

How about violation of basic human rights? When left to its own devices, the private sector doesn't exactly have a stellar track record in this department

Humanity as a whole likes to push that boundary. But that's more or less thanks to the dehumanization of large groups.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Arariel » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:46 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
Arariel wrote:I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution.

How about violation of basic human rights? When left to its own devices, the private sector doesn't exactly have a stellar track record in this department

Left to its own devices, neither does government.

iamspen
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby iamspen » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:32 am UTC

Arariel wrote:Left to its own devices, neither does government.


Good thing there's no, like, legislation or judicial rulings or anything we could present to argue that.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:39 am UTC

iamspen wrote:
Arariel wrote:
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
Arariel wrote:I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution.

How about violation of basic human rights? When left to its own devices, the private sector doesn't exactly have a stellar track record in this department

Left to its own devices, neither does government.


Good thing there's no, like, legislation or judicial rulings or anything we could present to argue that.


I agree with your post but you left out some important context in the quote-tree... so I put them back.

Yeah, its not like we rely on the Government to say... end slavery, end segregation, grant women's suffrage... or for something that is directly related to this thread... uphold the first sale doctrine.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Arariel » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:43 am UTC

iamspen wrote:
Arariel wrote:Left to its own devices, neither does government.


Good thing there's no, like, legislation or judicial rulings or anything we could present to argue that.


Good thing there's not, like, 3% of Americans under 'correctional supervision' or anything.

KnightExemplar wrote:
iamspen wrote:
Arariel wrote:
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
Arariel wrote:I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution.

How about violation of basic human rights? When left to its own devices, the private sector doesn't exactly have a stellar track record in this department

Left to its own devices, neither does government.


Good thing there's no, like, legislation or judicial rulings or anything we could present to argue that.


I agree with your post but you left out some important context in the quote-tree... so I put them back.

Yeah, its not like we rely on the Government to say... end slavery, end segregation, grant women's suffrage... or for something that is directly related to this thread... uphold the first sale doctrine.


Yeah, it's not like we rely on the Government to say... uphold slavery, preserve segregation, and deny women the vote... or for something that is directly related to this thread... prevent people from selling books how they would like to.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:49 am UTC

Arariel wrote:Yeah, it's not like we rely on the Government to say... uphold slavery, preserve segregation, and deny women the vote... or for something that is directly related to this thread... prevent people from selling books how they would like to.


Do you deny the ability for a private entity to make a case before the court? "The Government" didn't bring this case before Kirtsaeng. Wiley did, and they lost their court case. IE: Corporation brought this case forward.

Not that "corporations are evil" or whatever, but aside from being the 3rd party in this case... the Government didn't do defending or prosecuting. It is Wiley vs Kirtsaeng. Corporation vs Student. Nothing more.

BattleMoose wrote:It would appear I am in a minority here, perhaps even alone, in thinking large successful corporations usually have become what they are through prudent and pragmatic decision making.

But perhaps everyone here is right, and they are as useless at making good decisions as the rest of the public and are just throwing darts at a dart board. :-/ And a handful of examples of poor decisions, definitively proves the later.


A corporation typically tries to make a better decision making framework, and they generally do. But even then, they are individually made up of humans, and those humans make mistakes... sometimes a lot of cascading mistakes. I wouldn't pretend to steer Microsoft better than Steve Balmer does for instance... but at the end of the day, he's may be a super-billionare CEO, but he's still human. The financial crisis is an example of where a series of mistakes across many companies screwed up the economic system. Are companies better at making decisions? Perhaps. But they are also vulnerable to group-think, like any large organization of people. Where bad ideas are amplified, instead of criticized.

What matters is not "corporation vs government" though, its process. By what process do we go about doing things to prevent classical failure cases: group think, minimizing conflicts of interest, and so forth. By that, "Government" becomes a defined system where we can evaluate what parts work and what parts don't. Arguing at the level of "Corporation vs Government" frankly doesn't make much sense.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:59 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Arariel » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:59 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Arariel wrote:Yeah, it's not like we rely on the Government to say... uphold slavery, preserve segregation, and deny women the vote... or for something that is directly related to this thread... prevent people from selling books how they would like to.


Do you deny the ability for a private entity to make a case before the court? "The Government" didn't bring this case before Kirtsaeng. Wiley did, and they lost their court case. IE: Corporation brought this case forward.

Not that "corporations are evil" or whatever, but aside from being the 3rd party in this case... the Government didn't do defending or prosecuting. It is Wiley vs Kirtsaeng. Corporation vs Student. Nothing more.

Wiley brought this case forward in a government court. If Kirtsaeng had lost, payment of damages would have been enforced by the government. Without a powerful government, Kirtsaeng would have had nothing to fear.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:04 am UTC

Arariel wrote:Wiley brought this case forward in a government court. If Kirtsaeng had lost, payment of damages would have been enforced by the government. Without a powerful government, Kirtsaeng would have had nothing to fear.


Real life is interesting enough. I'm not interested in speaking about a hypothetical alternative universe where things conveniently work towards your argument. The fact is, "the US government" did not side with Wiley, and the first sale principle remains upheld. If you can't stay within the realms of reality to defend your own argument, why should I bother following your imaginary reasoning?

Unless your hypothetical has some greater purpose? I seriously doubt it. Or are you seriously saying that without a powerful court system, general society would work out better? If you're implying the latter, I hope you know that I have no interest in following you down that path. Contracts are the cornerstone of modern society. Without courts, no contract can be forced to be upheld, so everyone loses. You seriously can't be implying that a weak judicial branch is a good thing... can you?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Arariel » Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:30 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Arariel wrote:Wiley brought this case forward in a government court. If Kirtsaeng had lost, payment of damages would have been enforced by the government. Without a powerful government, Kirtsaeng would have had nothing to fear.


Real life is interesting enough. I'm not interested in speaking about a hypothetical alternative universe where things conveniently work towards your argument. The fact is, "the US government" did not side with Wiley, and the first sale principle remains upheld. If you can't stay within the realms of reality to defend your own argument, why should I bother following your imaginary reasoning?

Unless your hypothetical has some greater purpose? I seriously doubt it. Or are you seriously saying that without a powerful court system, general society would work out better? If you're implying the latter, I hope you know that I have no interest in following you down that path. Contracts are the cornerstone of modern society. Without courts, no contract can be forced to be upheld, so everyone loses. You seriously can't be implying that a weak judicial branch is a good thing... can you?

Nevertheless, Wiley would have to rely on the government to enforce any damages resulting in the case.

And while in a pure libertarian framework there's room for contracts which rely on just people (after all, who is going to deal with a person who breaks contracts?), even if we suppose government's role can cover enforcing contracts, this was not a contract case. This was a copyright case. If it were a contract case, it would have been under the jurisdiction of Thailand. And it's not a contract case because there was no contract.

iamspen
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby iamspen » Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:47 am UTC

Arariel wrote:And while in a pure libertarian framework there's room for contracts which rely on just people (after all, who is going to deal with a person who breaks contracts?), even if we suppose government's role can cover enforcing contracts, this was not a contract case. This was a copyright case. If it were a contract case, it would have been under the jurisdiction of Thailand. And it's not a contract case because there was no contract.


And if the government were so weak they were unable to enforce the rule of law, what would have stopped Wiley from simply shooting the poor kid? Yes, governments have a lot of problems, and yes, they are usually quite corrupt entities even at the best of times, but I'd like to think our system is better than that of an outlying neighborhood in Mogadishu; the judicial system interprets legislation in such a manner that neither the monied corporate party nor the college student has the odds skewed overwhelmingly in their favor. In the absence of such a system, the corporate entity would have the power to simply take what they want. How could that possibly be more beneficial to society than a third-party adjudicator?

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby J Thomas » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:03 am UTC

Arariel wrote:I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution. You want the government to let the corporations rent seek?

And really, more profits != better for everyone. For example, in a competitive market, if price is higher than the average total cost, economic profit is made which entices entrance into the market. This represents a rightward shift of the supply curve. Rightward shift of the supply curve results in lower prices and higher quantity exchanged. Lower prices mean fewer economic profits (and the supply curve continues to shift right until all the profits are normal, that is, zero). But there's a higher total surplus, higher quantity exchanged, and society is better off.

In any event, government would do right to leave the market well enough alone, leaving no artificial barriers to entry, in order to allow the free market to allocate resources efficiently.


See? We depend on concentration of wealth to build up capital to invest. No profits, no progress. And if you want to buy a stock you sure don't want a company that faces free competition. There won't be any profits! Companies that have free competition can't begin to compete with companies that don't, not on the stock market and not for expanding into new products.

Free competition is death for capitalism. It should be allowed only for industries we want to stay stagnant.

OK, I'm being a little bit ironical, but the reasoning is sound.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:09 am UTC

Arariel wrote:And while in a pure libertarian framework there's room for contracts which rely on just people (after all, who is going to deal with a person who breaks contracts?), even if we suppose government's role can cover enforcing contracts, this was not a contract case.


It was a property rights case. intelectual property rights but still property rights.

the lines on a map indicating what land you believe belongs to you are utterly meaningless if your neighbours and a reasonable portion of everyone else doesn't happen to agree with you.

You don't get to force anyone else to enforce your contracts for you if they don't want to help you.

And it was a contract case, the publisher had a contract with a third party. the whole case was over whether that contract fell under the same laws as a contract with another american entity.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Diemo » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:59 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:
Arariel wrote:I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution. You want the government to let the corporations rent seek?

And really, more profits != better for everyone. For example, in a competitive market, if price is higher than the average total cost, economic profit is made which entices entrance into the market. This represents a rightward shift of the supply curve. Rightward shift of the supply curve results in lower prices and higher quantity exchanged. Lower prices mean fewer economic profits (and the supply curve continues to shift right until all the profits are normal, that is, zero). But there's a higher total surplus, higher quantity exchanged, and society is better off.

In any event, government would do right to leave the market well enough alone, leaving no artificial barriers to entry, in order to allow the free market to allocate resources efficiently.


See? We depend on concentration of wealth to build up capital to invest. No profits, no progress. And if you want to buy a stock you sure don't want a company that faces free competition. There won't be any profits! Companies that have free competition can't begin to compete with companies that don't, not on the stock market and not for expanding into new products.

Free competition is death for capitalism. It should be allowed only for industries we want to stay stagnant.

OK, I'm being a little bit ironical, but the reasoning is sound.


What? Are you arguing that we should only have monopolies? Do you seriously think that this is a good idea?!
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Azrael » Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:15 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, even if BattleMoose is 100% correct about why currently successful corporations have become so, and in an evolutionary sense they are supremely adapted to their current niches, something new or unexpected could still quite easily wipe them out, so to speak. Their existing strategies, which have served so well in the past, could backfire spectacularly in a different economic environment.


To illustrate this point:

Blackberry. HP, Dell and IBM's PC divisions.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:42 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, even if BattleMoose is 100% correct about why currently successful corporations have become so, and in an evolutionary sense they are supremely adapted to their current niches, something new or unexpected could still quite easily wipe them out, so to speak. Their existing strategies, which have served so well in the past, could backfire spectacularly in a different economic environment.


To illustrate this point:

Blackberry. HP, Dell and IBM's PC divisions.


Western Union, White Star, Chrysler.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:20 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Azrael wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, even if BattleMoose is 100% correct about why currently successful corporations have become so, and in an evolutionary sense they are supremely adapted to their current niches, something new or unexpected could still quite easily wipe them out, so to speak. Their existing strategies, which have served so well in the past, could backfire spectacularly in a different economic environment.


To illustrate this point:

Blackberry. HP, Dell and IBM's PC divisions.


Western Union, White Star, Chrysler.


Or even Apple nice initial success, then plummeting to almost closing it's doors and then back up again as one of the world's biggest company. Yeah, they usually make somewhat good decisions in order to become huge companies, but it doesn't mean every decision is a sound one.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:03 pm UTC

Arariel wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Arariel wrote:Wiley brought this case forward in a government court. If Kirtsaeng had lost, payment of damages would have been enforced by the government. Without a powerful government, Kirtsaeng would have had nothing to fear.


Real life is interesting enough. I'm not interested in speaking about a hypothetical alternative universe where things conveniently work towards your argument. The fact is, "the US government" did not side with Wiley, and the first sale principle remains upheld. If you can't stay within the realms of reality to defend your own argument, why should I bother following your imaginary reasoning?

Unless your hypothetical has some greater purpose? I seriously doubt it. Or are you seriously saying that without a powerful court system, general society would work out better? If you're implying the latter, I hope you know that I have no interest in following you down that path. Contracts are the cornerstone of modern society. Without courts, no contract can be forced to be upheld, so everyone loses. You seriously can't be implying that a weak judicial branch is a good thing... can you?

Nevertheless, Wiley would have to rely on the government to enforce any damages resulting in the case.

And while in a pure libertarian framework there's room for contracts which rely on just people (after all, who is going to deal with a person who breaks contracts?), even if we suppose government's role can cover enforcing contracts, this was not a contract case. This was a copyright case. If it were a contract case, it would have been under the jurisdiction of Thailand. And it's not a contract case because there was no contract.


In a pure libertarian framework, the government's only responsibility is to enforce people's right to private property. It is the government's role to create rules declaring who owns what, and what they can do with it. (Physical Property isn't obvious, especially with timeshares and other tricks of the free market. But even then, non-physical property and new inventions require property law to be applied to it for the free market to work... ie: the licensing of Radio Spectrum). Government plays the role of the 3rd party to settle property disputes. (and not much else) Even the purest of Libertarians understand that. Even if you are a pure libertarian, two parties going to the Government to settle a property argument is exactly what the government's role is.

Without some mechanism to settle property disputes, the Libertarian framework falls apart.

And in this very case, two parties brought forth a "tort case" to the Government. The government did no investigating themselves, the only evidence gathered was on the part of Wiley or the student. Finally, at the end of the case, "the government" has sided with your side of the argument. So... whats wrong with Government in the context of this thread?

And while in a pure libertarian framework there's room for contracts which rely on just people (after all, who is going to deal with a person who breaks contracts?)


i no rite? We need someone to keep track of people who break contracts. And someone who can figure out who really broke a contract, rather than just one side claiming it one way or the other. Otherwise you end up with two people claiming both sides broke a contract.

Without a reliable 3rd party who can guarantee the authenticity of contracts and keep track of who breaks them... all contracts cease to exist. At very least, there needs to be a neutral ground where people settle contract disputes (ie: court system). Every libertarian I know of agrees that courts are necessary.

http://libertariananswers.com/what-migh ... look-like/

As far as I can tell, Libertarians may wish to get rid of the Criminal Court system (i disagree... but thats another story). But all Libertarians understand the necessity of the Tort Courts, which is the kind of court Wiley took this case to.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby J Thomas » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:48 pm UTC

Diemo wrote:
J Thomas wrote:
Arariel wrote:I cannot imagine any conceivable possibility in which more government is the solution. You want the government to let the corporations rent seek?

And really, more profits != better for everyone. For example, in a competitive market, if price is higher than the average total cost, economic profit is made which entices entrance into the market. This represents a rightward shift of the supply curve. Rightward shift of the supply curve results in lower prices and higher quantity exchanged. Lower prices mean fewer economic profits (and the supply curve continues to shift right until all the profits are normal, that is, zero). But there's a higher total surplus, higher quantity exchanged, and society is better off.

In any event, government would do right to leave the market well enough alone, leaving no artificial barriers to entry, in order to allow the free market to allocate resources efficiently.


See? We depend on concentration of wealth to build up capital to invest. No profits, no progress. And if you want to buy a stock you sure don't want a company that faces free competition. There won't be any profits! Companies that have free competition can't begin to compete with companies that don't, not on the stock market and not for expanding into new products.

Free competition is death for capitalism. It should be allowed only for industries we want to stay stagnant.

OK, I'm being a little bit ironical, but the reasoning is sound.


What? Are you arguing that we should only have monopolies? Do you seriously think that this is a good idea?!


No, of course not. We should have free competition in decaying industries, so they will decay faster and free up their resources.

Seriously, the way people usually talk about this stuff makes no sense. Free competition leads to ruin. Consider farming, where the small farmers are mostly gone and it takes heavy government intervention to preserve large farmers and keep it from devolving into just a few giant corporations. In each new industry you start out with lots of competition and it's only after almost all of the competitors are gone that anybody can make much money. You do not want to work in an industry with free competition. Life is far better if your industry has strictly limited competition, but your suppliers have lots of competition.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:43 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, even if BattleMoose is 100% correct about why currently successful corporations have become so, and in an evolutionary sense they are supremely adapted to their current niches, something new or unexpected could still quite easily wipe them out, so to speak. Their existing strategies, which have served so well in the past, could backfire spectacularly in a different economic environment.


To illustrate this point:

Blackberry. HP, Dell and IBM's PC divisions.


Just a nitpick on IBM...

IBM is the exact opposite of what you're looking for. IBM sold off their Notebook / PC division in 2005, custom created the chip for the PS3, Gamecube, and XBox360... and has transitioned itself into a consulting company. Between 2005 and today, IBM's stock price has only increased, its profits have improved and its reputation as a supercomputing consulting firm has only grown stronger with the creating of the Cell supercomputer chip, and Watson's victory on Jeopardy.

All the while, they sold their PC division back in 2005 for $1.5 billion in cash, forced Lenovo to take up $500 million in former IBM debt, and are therefore completely unaffected by the weakening of the Desktop / Notebook PC market. In fact, they made out like bandits by selling their PC division long before tablets / smartphones hit the market.

IBM is simultaneously the company that invented the PC, stuck with it through its boom years in the 90s / early 2000s, and then shed the mantel before PCs became unprofitable. Their decision making process is borderline omniscient, and is a strong case for "Successful Companies make good decisions". IBM has also shown an enormous amount of agility by adapting to market conditions, and remaining profitable.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:55 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Their decision making process is borderline omniscient


The Singularity gets closer every day...
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:59 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Their decision making process is borderline omniscient


The Singularity gets closer every day...


You know what they say. HAL's successor is IBM. (get it? After H is I, the letter after A is B. The letter after L is M).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Wiley sues student for infringing copyright on resold bo

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:37 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:No, of course not. We should have free competition in decaying industries, so they will decay faster and free up their resources.

Seriously, the way people usually talk about this stuff makes no sense. Free competition leads to ruin. Consider farming, where the small farmers are mostly gone and it takes heavy government intervention to preserve large farmers and keep it from devolving into just a few giant corporations. In each new industry you start out with lots of competition and it's only after almost all of the competitors are gone that anybody can make much money. You do not want to work in an industry with free competition. Life is far better if your industry has strictly limited competition, but your suppliers have lots of competition.


Eh? The question isn't, "If you want to maximize your deposits into your bank account, would you rather be a small business in a free market or a monopolistic megacorporation?" The question is what makes for a healthier market. Econ 101, man, in a free market profits tend towards zero and wages and prices tend towards equilibrium. And if you promote monopolies until the industry is deemed to be decaying, you have to go through a cycle of lowered wages and raised prices followed by a bust in the industry as new businesses start from scratch after the monopoly is forcibly imploded. It would be crazy inefficient.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PAstrychef and 10 guests