You know how prices come to be? You should, you definitely should.
It´s actually pretty easy.

And no, working on something longer or harder doesn´t make it any more valueable. It just raises your own costs, and might make it unprofitable to produce, if no one meets your price.

People buy stuff based on their preferences, and their private preferences regulate how much utility a certain product has for them, ceteris paribus, of course.

So, value is UTTERLY relative. A useless concept. There´s a price and there´s costs and that´s that.

Quote from: SettembriniAnd no, working on something longer or harder doesn´t make it any more valueable. It just raises your own costs, and might make it unprofitable to produce, if no one meets your price.

Labour adds value. But a thing can have use-value without any added labour (eg sunlight).

Whether a thing has exchange-value will depend on a few things. One of them is whether anybody wants to exchange the product of their own labour for the product of your labour. So Levi's shit pie is pretty valueless because I can make my own shit pie as soon as my bowels fill. However, if Levi was of the same fame and stature as, say, Jimi Hendrix, there might well be people willing to buy his pie. It is a unique commodity produced by the only person in the world who can produce it.

Anyway, this ought to be interesting, since it was your fellow cabbage-head who raised the value issue in the first place. And I don't mean Karl Marx.

Quote from: droogLabour adds value.

No, it doesn´t. Get used to that. Labour raises the costs of the producer. Nothing more, nothing less.

Labour is nothing special. It´s a resource, there is nothing magic, better special about it that sets it apart from any other production factor. Sure, each factor has it´s own attributes. But labour is not the linchpin you or the Marxist make it to be.

Value is purely relative. If there ever was anything relative, then it´s value.

Hey, let's headbutt assertions!

Quote from: HaffrungBut ethics aside, take the time to consider this question: What do you think will happen to creative industries when the creators no longer have control over their material, and when unauthorized use of that property becomes so widespread that the market value drops dramatically? In other words, what do you expect creators to do when creating is much less profitable and much more risky? Keep creating things you want and giving them to you for free?

That is not at all a theoretical Question for me as I am in a business that has to cope with the fallout of illegal downloads.

When any new anime episode can be found online, subbed, mere hours after its premiere on Japanese TV fans worldwide rejoice. Freed from having to wait approximately two years for a release in their markets they download and watch that stuff immediately.
But the licensees take notice of that and simply stop licensing. Very recently three publishers went out of the anime business in Germany: Red Planet, ADV,  and Tokyopop, for exactly that reason.
The Japanese licensors don't get the revenue they have factored into the production of a series, so next year there will be less new series.
And "next year" is now. This year there are less new anime series on Japanese TV because the filesharers are about to first kill the international market and in turn the very source of their entertainment.

Biting the hand that feeds and all that...

Quote from: droogHey, let's headbutt assertions!

Well, on "my" assertions you can make hard calculations and predictions.

Value is purely an ethical term, and so is your assertion that labour SHOULD add value. You WANT a society that VALUES LABOUR. An ethical stance, totally different from describing reality.

So is your stance.

Quote from: HaffrungBut ethics aside, take the time to consider this question: What do you think will happen to creative industries when the creators no longer have control over their material, and when unauthorized use of that property becomes so widespread that the market value drops dramatically? In other words, what do you expect creators to do when creating is much less profitable and much more risky? Keep creating things you want and giving them to you for free?

The same thing that would happen before the introduction of copyright. The arts would be funded by wealthy patrons. Performing arts would have the additional luxury of charging for a "authentic" live performance. (Performances by the original artists would still have considerable value)

The big difference between older times and now is that technology has made reproduction and creation so much easier. However there will be a lot of crap with a few gems.

Quote from: Consonant DudeNobody can demonstrate such correct estimations.

Nodoby can demonstrate the precise scale of insurance fraud or tax evasion. But we know it happens. And we know who ultimately pays for it - honest people who pay their taxes and don't defraud their insurors.

Quote from: Consonant DudeA shitload of creators do not have any control over their material. Heck... most of the time it's not even their material even if they create it!

Creators make contracts with people to produce and distribute their content. And they do get something out of the deal - access to capital to fund production and marketing, all the ancillary expertise that goes into bringing creative goods to market (layout, proofing, engineering, accounting, marketing, etc).

It's true that some of those services are more widely available and easier to use today, which helps with amateur artistic production. But there is still a lot of professional expertise that creators need  if they want a really professional product.

QuoteYou seem to think that file-sharing has changed the landscape for creators, providing them with less incentives to create. It hasn't, IMO. Most artists were broke before file-sharing. Most artists are still broke now that files are shared.

Somebody is losing money - big time. And don't forget the role of capital. As I noted above, a lot of professional artistic products (ie movies) require shitloads of financing up front. Where is that going to come from in a free content economy?

QuoteWhen unauthorized use of property becomes even more widespread, the top dogs (and they are companies and corporations, not necessarily creators) will adjust offering more convenience, better service and reliability while using all their skills to always be leaders in market penetration and all that shit.

Well, that and passing on the cost of free-riding to people who actually pay. And when those folks get tired of being suckers for the free-riders, they'll stop paying too. And at that point, there may not be a whole lot of room left for innovation. Maybe it will simply become unprofitable to finance and devote skilled labour to producing IP that customers expect for free.

QuoteAnd to answer your question another way: there will always, always be creative people who get the urge. It is seductive. The roleplaying industry is a good example. Lots of those people could be elsewhere making more money.

Sure. I've said all along that there will lots more amateur content out there. And people who have the time and inclination to sift through mountains of digital chaff looking for the good stuff will be happy. Me, I find the overwhelming proportion of free stuff is worth exactly what you pay for it. I recognize and appreciate the value added by professionalism, and the gatekeeper role that those horrible business owners play in sorting quality stuff that will sell from the dross that gets heaped into the marketplace.

And you're also overlooking the key roles that the non-creative types in putting out professional content. As I mentioned above, editors, technicians, marketing personnel, etc. add a lot of value to the end product. Essentially, they're the difference between amateur content and professional content. And people generally don't do that stuff as a passionate creative outlet. Proofing books is tedious work. Without a regular paycheque and some security, people aren't going to take on those dull yet necessary roles in game, movie, and music production.

QuoteHaving said that, I don't want creators (and that includes me) to starve. But that's really not what is happening here. The internet has changed the landscape but it's hardly worse than it was before. It's just different as far as I can see.

Sure it can get worse. I mean, most artists have always starved. That's because there simply isn't a market for what they're trying to sell - at least not enough to earn a living from. Sad but true. And I know a lot of artists.
The problem we're going to start seeing is that even art that does have a market - stuff that thousands and millions of people enjoy - will be devalued because a big part of that market expects to get all IP material for free. But it's not free. Investors forked over a hundred million dollars to make The 300. And yet a big part of the audience for that movie felt entitled to watch it for free.

I believe we're reaching a tipping point where the entitled cohort gets older and broader and it becomes even easier to take IP without paying, that it will become the norm. And when the audience stops paying for IP content, the producers will stop making it.

Look at Dirk's example of anime licensing. I've always predicted that the impact of IP theft would be seen first with geek content aimed at young, tech savvy men, and it has. Anime is the canary in the mine shaft. The audience feels entitled to access anime for free, and now the producers are responding to declining revenue by cutting back on content. This isn't speculation - it's happening now.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd don't forget the role of capital. As I noted above, a lot of professional artistic products (ie movies) require shitloads of financing up front. Where is that going to come from in a free content economy?

Different places.  Loads of them, and all each one very different from the others.

Just because the commercial opportunities don't favor the normal methods does not mean that commercial opportunity is dead online.  

There will be not be world of magic pixie dust and happy flowers with everything as free stuff for all.  

But neither will the physical marketplace model somehow magically stabilise in digital terms.

Quote from: HaffrungSo is somebody selling hot televisions out of a van.

If you get something of value for nothing (or very cheaply) while other people are paying for it, someone is being fucked. You seem to look at things in terms of 'what should one person to to best suit himself.' I judge each decision by it's collective long-term impact.

So you're in favor of a more communist type of market instead of capitalist, got it (OK, I'm teasing a bit).

But the fact remains, most people do indeed do what is best for themselves and without regard for collective long-term impact.

Quote from: HaffrungLook, you clearly don't understand that using intellectual property without permission can be as damaging to the person who created it as stealing an actual item. If you estimate a market of 100,000 customers for your IP product, and you find out that only 70,000 want it, then you made a bad business decision, and you have to accept the consequences. If you estimate a market of 100,000 for you product, and there really is a market of 100,000, but 30,000 of them take your intellectual property for free, then it's the free riders who are costing you, not a bad market decision.

Oh I get the argument.  But what I'm saying is that there are all kinds of market forces that can have the same effect without violating IP.

Let's ignore file-sharers for the moment and look at big discounters - Amazon and Wal*Mart.  They are selling goods far cheaper than others.  They don't give them away for free, but they still cause a depression of prices and crowd out the market for other producers.  They still cause the same tragedy of the commons.

If file-sharing is evil and damnable, then shouldn't shopping at Wal*Mart and Amazon be as well?  Is it really more ethical just because it causes less damage (it's "stealing" less)?  And even that is arguable - an argument can be made that Wal*Mart and Amazon cause more damage than file-sharing.  

Truly, if getting an item for free is considered stealing because of the indirect damage to suppliers, then isn't any situation where you pay less than MSRP also stealing?  It's just a matter of how much you are stealing, isn't it?

Quote from: HaffrungBut ethics aside, take the time to consider this question: What do you think will happen to creative industries when the creators no longer have control over their material, and when unauthorized use of that property becomes so widespread that the market value drops dramatically? In other words, what do you expect creators to do when creating is much less profitable and much more risky? Keep creating things you want and giving them to you for free?

By "creator" I assume you mean supplier, as not all creators retain rights to their own works.  In any event, you are correct - the situation will lead to a decrease in the overall supply of the market.  But we're headed there anyways - graying demographics, big-box discounters, the dying of FLGSes, the collapse of the mid-tier market, etc.  Even if we completely eliminate file-sharing, the best you could hope for is to slow this process down a little.

So for the individual, it's a bit like global warming.  People are put in a position where they can either inconvenience themselves for a possible future gain (one they themselves may never even see).  Or, they can do whatever they want now and worry about the consequences later (which they may see as inevitable whatever they do anyways).

Again, I'm not arguing about whether this is right or wrong.  Only that the behavior is easily explainable and perfectly normal human psychology.

Quote from: jgantsSo for the individual, it's a bit like global warming.  People are put in a position where they can either inconvenience themselves for a possible future gain (one they themselves may never even see).  Or, they can do whatever they want now and worry about the consequences later (which they may see as inevitable whatever they do anyways).

Good analogy. And I regard Levi's handwaving that the market will adapt somehow and everything will be okay the same way I regard the handwaving over global warming that scientists will figure some shit out. Maybe they won't.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDifferent places.  Loads of them, and all each one very different from the others.

Just because the commercial opportunities don't favor the normal methods does not mean that commercial opportunity is dead online.  

There will be not be world of magic pixie dust and happy flowers with everything as free stuff for all.  

But neither will the physical marketplace model somehow magically stabilise in digital terms.

Agreed. Advertising led content is how hte Internet has coped with no direct income from IP. But also D&D as a loss leader for mini sales and battlemap scenery is not inconceivable.
Role playing games are themselves going to move towards a subscription basis afterall the profits from WOW et al are vastly more than those from D&D 4e but the core IP is pretty similar so why would you not package your IP int eh most profitable way you can?

Quote from: HaffrungGood analogy. And I regard Levi's handwaving that the market will adapt somehow and everything will be okay the same way I regard the handwaving over global warming that scientists will figure some shit out. Maybe they won't.

*Shrug*

If you'd like me to get less handwavey and start being really specific, fire up a thread for it.

Quote from: droogMonths and months of writing and thinking will give your commodity value (comprising use-value and exchange-value). All things being equal, the price ought to hover around its value. Once it can be freely copied, it's limited pretty much to its use-value. At that point the price is what you can get people to pay for it.

I love what's folded into the "pretty much": your willingness to muddy the waters and make the case of the political enemy just so you can be contrary.

Much as you'd like it to, the labor invested into making a thing doesn't disappear at any stage. It's folded into use value, a term which means rather more than "whatever kick I get out of something."

A pure use-value society is what? Communism. Last time I checked we're still having Capitalism, where exploitation of labor is the rule of the day. Theft, which treats the object like a free commodity, is maximum exploitation, an extension of capitalism, not a countermodel.

In your reply, once you're done trying to prove something to me, maybe you could switch to making a constructive point.