I want to share a parable of sorts that I was told as a child:
Long ago, there was this poor man. He had a wife and two children. He worked in a quarry for one piece of silver a day. This was just enough money to buy a loaf of bread and some milk each day to feed his family. Each day, he would get up at sunrise, to work at the quarry. After six hours of work, he would get an hour off for his lunch, then he would work another six hours, before going home. During his hour of lunch time, we would take his lunch, a small chunk of bread, to the market, and he would sit near the stall of a fried chicken vendor and enjoy the aroma of the chicken, while eating his bread. One day, the vendor approached the man. He pointed out that he had seen this man eating his bread near the stall, every day, for a long time. He asked why the man chose to walk to the market and eat there each day, instead of staying at the quarry (the rock dust on his clothing made the man's occupation obvious). The quarry worker told the vendor that he enjoyed the smell of the fried chicken while he ate his lunch. The vendor suddenly got hostile. He told the quarry worker that he had worked hard to make that chicken. He demanded that the quarry worker pay him a silver piece for smelling the chicken. The quarry worker laughed at him. Several days later, the quarry worker was summoned to court. The fried chicken vendor was there. The judge informed him that the chicken vendor had accused him of theft. When the vendor was allowed to speak, he reasoned that the quarry worker had benefited from his labor by smelling the chicken and thus owed him something of value in return. He argued that, since the quarry worker had been smelling his fried chicken for many years, it was not unreasonable to charge him one silver piece. He demanded that the quarry worker pay him something of equal value to the benefits received. When the vendor was done speaking, the quarry worker was dumbfounded. Being uneducated, he could not think of any argument against the chicken vendor, even though he was certain the vendor's demands were unfair. An old wise man who had been observing the proceedings then stood and asked the judge if he could present a fair resolution to the case. The judge, also unsure of the situation, agreed. The wise man approached the quarry worker and asked him for a silver piece. The quarry worker handed him the only silver piece he had, the previous day's pay. The wise man held it up and asked the chicken vendor if he could see the shadow the coin cast on the floor. The vendor acknowledged that he could. The wise man then said, "You may take it and leave." The judge agreed that this was a fair resolution, the silver piece was returned to the quarry worker, and the vendor left with only the knowledge gained from seeing the shadow of the coin.
This story is interesting, because nearly everyone can see the justice in the outcome. It is immediately clear that the demands of the vendor are unreasonable. After all, who can own a smell? We can see the absurdity of the demand, even though the vendor is clearly correct that the smell was produced as a result of his hard work. We can also see that the quarry worker did indeed benefit from the smell produced by the work of the chicken vendor. The argument of the vendor is almost flawless. Why then do we consider it unfair that he demand compensation for his work? It is just a smell. It is not a physical object, and it does not improve the quarry worker in any way. The only material value that the quarry worker can get out of it is that it might make his bread more palatable. It is possible that it gives him temporary pleasure, but this is only of value while he is actually smelling the aroma. Once he goes back to work, the benefits are gone. The smell of the chicken does not give any lasting benefits. Similarly, the vendor might enjoy looking at the shadow of the coin, because he obviously likes money. Seeing the shadow might give him temporary pleasure, just like the smell of the chicken might give the quarry worker temporary pleasure. Just like the smell though, the vendor cannot take the shadow of the coin with him.
The moral of this story is that immaterial things do not have material value. Immaterial things only have value as they are being experienced. They have no value before or after the experience, only during. Some might argue that pleasurable experiences can increase happiness. This is true. I would like to see someone try to put a material value on this. The first problem with this is that it is completely subjective. The chicken vendor smells the chicken every day, all day long. If the pleasure from the smell of the chicken does indeed result in lasting increases in happiness, then the vendor should be the happiest man alive. As such, it seems to me that it could be argued that the vendor is already getting the full benefits of the smell and thus should not expect compensation from anyone else. If, however, the vendor is so sick of the smell that it results in decreased happiness, how then can we decide on a fair price? The guy in the next stall over might also be sick of the smell, or he maybe he likes fried chicken so much that the smell will never get old for him.
What it comes down to is that the smell is just information. Furthermore, it is information that has no inherent value. A person who has smelled the chicken cannot use the knowledge of what it smells like to gain any profit. Since there is no way to predict the affect of the smell on people, we cannot even claim that the smell improves happiness, and even if we could, there is no way we can accurately rate the value of the happiness it might bring. In the story, the outcome was completely fair, because the vendor was "paid" with equally valueless information: what the shadow of the coin looked like.
Is there a way that we could make the smell more material, so that it could be considered to have material value? First, to do this we would have to make the smell difficult to obtain. If we cannot do this, then there is no way to assign a value. The guy in the stall next to the chicken vendor will never pay for the smell, in any form, because he can get it for free. In light of modern patent and copyright law, this might seem unfair to the chicken vendor, but it is actually an integral part of a free market system. It is both unreasonable and unfair to attempt to force people to pay for a resource that is freely available. It would be like trying to charge people for the air they breathe. Air is required for our survival, but it cannot be assigned a value, because the supply is saturated. The vendor would have to stop making chicken in the market, and he would have to prevent anyone else from making chicken there. Second, he would have to attach the smell to a physical object. This is necessary because the smell must have some means of being transported. Again, no one is going to pay much for it if they cannot use it as they please. He could enclose his stall, so that no smell escapes, then he could charge a fee for entry (or, an hourly fee for being in the stall). He would get few or no customers though, because most people are not willing to pay for valueless information, if the information will then be denied because they are no longer willing to pay for it, or can no longer afford it. The solution to this would be for the chicken vendor to prevent anyone else from producing the fried chicken smell, then make something like scratch and sniff stickers with the smell. Even this solution has problems though. It clearly interferes with the freedom of other fried chicken vendors.
Now let's discuss media. Movie theaters use one of the potential techniques I suggested for the fried chicken vendor. They enclose their "stall" to prevent the "smell" from escaping. Movie theaters are not much more than glorified stalls designed to allow paying customers to experience something with some of their senses, while preventing those who have not paid from experiencing that thing. As I mentioned above though, for this to work, they also have to prevent any other "stalls" from offering the experience for free. This is done with copyrights, in the case of movies. Funny that it seems fair to do this for movies, but not for the smell of fried chicken. Would it be fair to do this for fried chicken if this vendor had invented the product? Now we have a dilemma. Fried chicken is trivial, so it seems wrong to allow the government to impose such absurd limitations. Movies take a lot of work to produce, so it seems more reasonable to impose these restrictions. In fact, this particular contradiction actually exists in U.S. law. Even though these are ultimately exactly the same thing, U.S. law forbids copyrighting or patenting of food recipes, but allows copyrighting or patenting of movies, music, writings, and a great number of other things.
Now let's look at this with reference to music piracy. Why is music piracy so rampant in the world? I have heard it argued that it is because people do not want to pay for things and will take anything that is available for free if they want it. I cannot entirely discount this theory. It is true that some people will steal if there is very low risk of getting caught. That said, I think that most people have better ethics than that. Most people can clearly see that shoplifting is wrong and choose not to do it, even though it is very low risk and extremely easy (in fact, most retail stores will not detain or press charges if they do not have continuous observation of a suspected shoplifter, because the person may have put the item down when not observed). I think that music piracy is so rampant due to a combination of factors. One factor is the freeness, and another is the convenience (bit torrent is even easier than I-Tunes). The reason that people do not treat it like shoplifting, though, is that they do not see media piracy as the same thing as stealing. The above story illustrates why. Music has no material value. Listening to a song imbues the listener with the knowledge of what it sounds like, but this knowledge has no functional value. Music has value as it is being listened to, but not before or after. As with the smell of the chicken, pleasure obtained during listening to music is completely subjective. Some people love country music, while some people hate it, and this applies equally to every genre of music. Some people do not like any music at all. The only difference between the music and the smell is which sense is used to detect them.
So, here is where the problem lies with music: The music industry used the scratch and sniff sticker strategy to monetize music. They used copyright law to prevent other vendors from making the "chicken smell." They attached the music to physical objects (vinyl records, tapes, CDs). Then they sold the objects. Using this strategy allowed them to include the perceived value of the music in the price of the physical object. The internet made the inherent flaw in this strategy evident. This strategy is not a free market strategy. It relies on government intervention to work. The problem is that the government only has so much resources, and further, it is not the government's responsibility to identify those who violate copyright, only to judge those that are accused. The internet has allowed a huge number of unregulatable "vendors" to distribute the "smell" at no cost and in an extremely convenient way. Since the media has been disassociated from the physical object, it is nearly impossible to regulate effectively. The media is now free (as in freedom) information. It is not chained to physical objects. This means that music has become like the smell of the chicken, except that now it has a much more effective mode of transportation.
Let's look at data as a recipe for something (since it is really nothing more). A computer program is a list of instructions, just like a cooking recipe. An mp3 file is a more abstract recipe for generating sound. Note that it is not the sound itself, it is just digital information that can be translated into a list of instructions for generating sound. Similarly, digital movies are nothing more than a list of instructions for generating sound and video. The only difference between this and cooking is that cooking requires that physical ingredients be consumed. (Do not, however, think that this is a justification for treating them differently. A patent is not much more than a list of instructions for a process, or for building and using a device, and exactly like a recipe, when building a patented object physical ingredients are consumed. Like recipes to copyright, patents have an exception: mathematical algorithms cannot be patented, even though it could be argued that any process described in a patent can be boiled down to a simple mathematical algorithm.)
Anyhow, what this comes down to is that media piracy is so rampant because most people recognize the hypocrisy in charging for a sound or an image that has no lasting value. This provides an ethical conflict that allows the desire for free and convenience to have highest priority.
I also want to cover an argument against my assertion that people will not pay for valueless information unless they are free to use it as they please. First, there are always exceptions. Not everyone has good judgment (and, our culture encourages poor judgment in this area). Second, the obvious argument that people pay for video games on a subscription model is not a valid argument to claim that people will pay for valueless information. Video games have repeatedly been shown to have educational value. As interactive products, games also tend to continuously provide information (unlike a movie or song, games typically provide much more information, and well made games often provide different information each time they are played). In fact, the interactive nature of games often creates a feedback loop that improves skills at the same time as encouraging the user to continue playing the game. This leads to the third part, this does not apply to addictive substances or media. Plenty of people pay subscription fees for pornography, even though the information has no value (and often has long lasting negative value). This is because it causes dopamine addiction. People acting on addictions cannot be considered competent customers. (In some cases, games can also fall into this category.)
Lord Rybec
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
05 June 2013
25 November 2012
Intellectual Property and Tangible Property
On August 22, 1995, the U.S. government granted some person authority over the usage of all laser pointers throughout the country. I don't know the name of the person, but I do know that this decision was neither reviewed by Congress, nor the President. Likewise, the person granted this authority was neither elected by the people of the U.S., nor by any representative subset of the people of the U.S. The authority was arbitrarily granted by previously approved U.S. law.
The specific authority granted to this person was the authority to grant or withhold permission for people in the U.S. to use their laser pointers to entertain and exercise cats. Since this date, it has been illegal for any person residing within the United States of America to use a laser pointer to cause a cat to exercise, without the express permission of this person. The U.S. laws that grant this person the right to control how other people use their personal property are none other than the patent laws.
I am guilty of patent infringement. I got my first laser pointer in 1999. The first thing I did with it when I got home was to torment our cat with it, infringing on patent number 5,443,036. Of course, I was not aware that anyone had patented this practice, but according to the law, I am still guilty of patent infringement. Since then, I have infringed on this patent many more times. I learned of my infractions only a year ago, and while I have not had time to commit any more, I would happily do so if I had the time.
I do not intend on ever requesting permission to use the so called intellectual property of the person who has this patent. This example makes it clear that patent law infringes on the right to ownership of tangible property. Besides that, I would submit that patent law infringes on another of the fundamental rights that our nation was founded upon. Patent law infringes on the right to fair representation in government. The authority granted to the above mentioned person was approved by a patent clerk, not by any elected representative. Right, ultimately the law that granted the clerk the authority to make the judgment can be traced through representatives of the people, but I do not think it is just to allow any person to seize authority over the physical property of others merely by inventing something that can be made with that property, or by inventing a process that requires the use of that property. The process of granting such extensive power over the personal property of others should require at least the direct vote of elected representatives, if not the direct vote of the people themselves, on a per case basis. Any government that grants such arbitrary power over the property of others without the explicit consent of those governed can reasonably be considered an oppressive government. Admittedly, the U.S. government is still one of the most free and least oppressive on Earth, but when it comes to ownership rights of physical property, it is doing a very poor job of effectively protecting them.
Lord Rybec
The specific authority granted to this person was the authority to grant or withhold permission for people in the U.S. to use their laser pointers to entertain and exercise cats. Since this date, it has been illegal for any person residing within the United States of America to use a laser pointer to cause a cat to exercise, without the express permission of this person. The U.S. laws that grant this person the right to control how other people use their personal property are none other than the patent laws.
I am guilty of patent infringement. I got my first laser pointer in 1999. The first thing I did with it when I got home was to torment our cat with it, infringing on patent number 5,443,036. Of course, I was not aware that anyone had patented this practice, but according to the law, I am still guilty of patent infringement. Since then, I have infringed on this patent many more times. I learned of my infractions only a year ago, and while I have not had time to commit any more, I would happily do so if I had the time.
I do not intend on ever requesting permission to use the so called intellectual property of the person who has this patent. This example makes it clear that patent law infringes on the right to ownership of tangible property. Besides that, I would submit that patent law infringes on another of the fundamental rights that our nation was founded upon. Patent law infringes on the right to fair representation in government. The authority granted to the above mentioned person was approved by a patent clerk, not by any elected representative. Right, ultimately the law that granted the clerk the authority to make the judgment can be traced through representatives of the people, but I do not think it is just to allow any person to seize authority over the physical property of others merely by inventing something that can be made with that property, or by inventing a process that requires the use of that property. The process of granting such extensive power over the personal property of others should require at least the direct vote of elected representatives, if not the direct vote of the people themselves, on a per case basis. Any government that grants such arbitrary power over the property of others without the explicit consent of those governed can reasonably be considered an oppressive government. Admittedly, the U.S. government is still one of the most free and least oppressive on Earth, but when it comes to ownership rights of physical property, it is doing a very poor job of effectively protecting them.
Lord Rybec
23 January 2012
Inflation vs Wage Increase
I recently wrote a paper for an English class (which I will post here eventually) based on the income distribution problems in the US. This paper required actual research and citations, so I ended up looking up things like average inflation and wage increase over the last 50 years. What I found is appalling and rather damning for large businesses. It turns out that the current situation is many times worse than I had initially thought.
The two above mentioned statistics (inflation and wage increase) should give a very clear indication of exactly where the problem lies. The statistics are as follows: average inflation from 1961 to now (the last 50 years) is 659%, and average wage increase for the lower 99% of wage earners is 75%. If you don't see the problem, let me explain.
This means that businesses are charging 6.5 times more for goods, but only paying 1.75 times more wages (to 99% of the population). Note that for the top 1%, wage increase is 250%, which is still only half of the rate of inflation. In short, everyone is getting ripped off, except for the few CEOs that are keeping the enormous leftovers.
Ok, this might sound kind of bad now (to me, this by itself is appalling). There is more though. The cost of production is literally at all time lows. I am not talking monetary costs. In the end, all production costs break down to labor. The cost, in labor, of producing even the most advanced technology is less than it has ever been, in the entire history of mankind. Our ability to produce food is legendary. The US produces many times more food than we need and with only a tiny fraction of the available labor. This goes for nearly everything produced in the US. Instead of lower prices however, businesses are raising them. Instead of using the surplus cash to pay their workers a fair wage though, they hoard it, paying their CEOs absurdly high wages (see that xkcd.com comic I posted a bit ago; typical CEO wages are $5,000 an hour), and squandering it on other fairly pointless endeavors.
I tried to explain this to someone recently, and the excuse for inaction was that it is none of our business if other people are getting ripped off by businesses. I was told that I could leave the US if I did not like how the businesses here treat people. First, to my knowledge, there is no place in the world that employers treat their employees fairly. The US and Europe are the best we have (actually, this is debatable) and both stink. This idea that ripping off people is ethical as long as they agree to it is nauseating to me (I believe I also posted my opinion on the idea that it is ethical to charge as much as people are willing to pay; I feel the same about the idea that it is ethical to pay the lowest wages people are willing to work for). Now the first argument, that it is none of our business, is just as bad. This is the argument used by Germans who were not willing to help the Jews. I know a cliche that fits this situation perfectly: "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." I apologize if some people find this comparison to Nazi Germany to be offensive, but if you will take the time to think about it, you will find that there is little difference. If you believe that slavery in the South was bad and that freeing the slaves was a good thing, then it is hypocritical to claim that this injustice is none of your business. (When I post my paper, you will find that what is happening in the US now is not that far from actual slavery.)
I am a member of the LDS Church, commonly known as Mormons. Most Mormons that I know are very conservative. I consider myself to be fairly conservative (though I do not like to associate myself with the Republican party, as I have found it to be no less corrupt than any other party). Still, my religion dictates that it is my business to care that my fellow humans are being treated unfairly and are being oppressed. I have heard the argument that those running businesses have the agency to choose how to treat their employees. This, however, is not a valid excuse to allow them to continue to rob them of fairly earned wages. This argument is as valid as the argument that thieves should not be prevented from robbery (or punished for it), because they have the agency to act as they please. We live in a democratically run government (at least, in theory). It is the business of the people to enforce fairness. This is the purpose of a democratic government. My religion specifically states that I am my brother's keeper and that the term "brother" is used to represent every human ever born and that ever will be born. In short, my religion expressly dictates that how others are treated by their employers is my business. The agency of others does not even apply in this case. Any Mormon that tries to use this argument as an excuse for inaction does not understand the teachings of their religion. This applies equally to any religion that believes the Bible to be the Word of God.
One of these days, I will work out the math for these rates and post a projection for cost versus pay 50 years from now. I suspect that it will predict that 99% (or more) of the US population will not make enough money to eat without being on welfare in 50 years.
I doubt that this will ever happen, however. If the situation continues to decay, the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually evolve into a violent revolution, and our government and all of the big businesses that control it will be destroyed. If the government tries to quell the movement, it will be another Tienanmen Square and will probably result in even a more violent revolution. Of course, maybe this is what SOPA and PIPA are all about. Maybe our government is trying to gain control of the internet so that they can kill thousands of protestors and then cover it up, just like China did. I doubt that it will work here, however. If nothing else, the nerds (I include myself in this group) will manage to spread the news even against all the efforts of the government to cover it up.
Since my last few posts, the government has not done anything significant to appease the 99%. In fact, they have blatantly tried to further oppress them (SOPA, PIPA). At the rate they are going, revolution is nigh. I recommend preparing. Still, don't give up. If it is possible to force our government to acknowledge that it is at the mercy of the people, peacefully, then it will take the effort of as much of the US population as possible.
Lord Rybec
The two above mentioned statistics (inflation and wage increase) should give a very clear indication of exactly where the problem lies. The statistics are as follows: average inflation from 1961 to now (the last 50 years) is 659%, and average wage increase for the lower 99% of wage earners is 75%. If you don't see the problem, let me explain.
This means that businesses are charging 6.5 times more for goods, but only paying 1.75 times more wages (to 99% of the population). Note that for the top 1%, wage increase is 250%, which is still only half of the rate of inflation. In short, everyone is getting ripped off, except for the few CEOs that are keeping the enormous leftovers.
Ok, this might sound kind of bad now (to me, this by itself is appalling). There is more though. The cost of production is literally at all time lows. I am not talking monetary costs. In the end, all production costs break down to labor. The cost, in labor, of producing even the most advanced technology is less than it has ever been, in the entire history of mankind. Our ability to produce food is legendary. The US produces many times more food than we need and with only a tiny fraction of the available labor. This goes for nearly everything produced in the US. Instead of lower prices however, businesses are raising them. Instead of using the surplus cash to pay their workers a fair wage though, they hoard it, paying their CEOs absurdly high wages (see that xkcd.com comic I posted a bit ago; typical CEO wages are $5,000 an hour), and squandering it on other fairly pointless endeavors.
I tried to explain this to someone recently, and the excuse for inaction was that it is none of our business if other people are getting ripped off by businesses. I was told that I could leave the US if I did not like how the businesses here treat people. First, to my knowledge, there is no place in the world that employers treat their employees fairly. The US and Europe are the best we have (actually, this is debatable) and both stink. This idea that ripping off people is ethical as long as they agree to it is nauseating to me (I believe I also posted my opinion on the idea that it is ethical to charge as much as people are willing to pay; I feel the same about the idea that it is ethical to pay the lowest wages people are willing to work for). Now the first argument, that it is none of our business, is just as bad. This is the argument used by Germans who were not willing to help the Jews. I know a cliche that fits this situation perfectly: "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." I apologize if some people find this comparison to Nazi Germany to be offensive, but if you will take the time to think about it, you will find that there is little difference. If you believe that slavery in the South was bad and that freeing the slaves was a good thing, then it is hypocritical to claim that this injustice is none of your business. (When I post my paper, you will find that what is happening in the US now is not that far from actual slavery.)
I am a member of the LDS Church, commonly known as Mormons. Most Mormons that I know are very conservative. I consider myself to be fairly conservative (though I do not like to associate myself with the Republican party, as I have found it to be no less corrupt than any other party). Still, my religion dictates that it is my business to care that my fellow humans are being treated unfairly and are being oppressed. I have heard the argument that those running businesses have the agency to choose how to treat their employees. This, however, is not a valid excuse to allow them to continue to rob them of fairly earned wages. This argument is as valid as the argument that thieves should not be prevented from robbery (or punished for it), because they have the agency to act as they please. We live in a democratically run government (at least, in theory). It is the business of the people to enforce fairness. This is the purpose of a democratic government. My religion specifically states that I am my brother's keeper and that the term "brother" is used to represent every human ever born and that ever will be born. In short, my religion expressly dictates that how others are treated by their employers is my business. The agency of others does not even apply in this case. Any Mormon that tries to use this argument as an excuse for inaction does not understand the teachings of their religion. This applies equally to any religion that believes the Bible to be the Word of God.
One of these days, I will work out the math for these rates and post a projection for cost versus pay 50 years from now. I suspect that it will predict that 99% (or more) of the US population will not make enough money to eat without being on welfare in 50 years.
I doubt that this will ever happen, however. If the situation continues to decay, the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually evolve into a violent revolution, and our government and all of the big businesses that control it will be destroyed. If the government tries to quell the movement, it will be another Tienanmen Square and will probably result in even a more violent revolution. Of course, maybe this is what SOPA and PIPA are all about. Maybe our government is trying to gain control of the internet so that they can kill thousands of protestors and then cover it up, just like China did. I doubt that it will work here, however. If nothing else, the nerds (I include myself in this group) will manage to spread the news even against all the efforts of the government to cover it up.
Since my last few posts, the government has not done anything significant to appease the 99%. In fact, they have blatantly tried to further oppress them (SOPA, PIPA). At the rate they are going, revolution is nigh. I recommend preparing. Still, don't give up. If it is possible to force our government to acknowledge that it is at the mercy of the people, peacefully, then it will take the effort of as much of the US population as possible.
Lord Rybec
09 June 2010
iPhone without cash?
(See revision at end of article)
So, I've heard rumors that Apple iPhones cannot be bought with cash. The rumors say that the purchase of an iPhone must be paid with check, debit, or credit card. Since when has the government rescinded the part of US cash currency that says it is “legal tender for all debts, public or private”? Take a bill out of your pocket, right now, and look at the front face. Near the top left corner you will notice several lines of small text. Read it. The last time I checked, there was only one single instance in which a person or business could refuse US tender. This instance is that more than 25 cents in pennies is not considered legal tender.
The rumor say the reason that Apple has made this policy is so that an iPhone sale can be easily traced. The intent is to prevent iPhones bought in the US from being illegally exported. While I understand their concern, it disgusts me that they are willing to enforce policies on their sellers which are totally and entirely illegal. What disgusts me worse is that their vendors actually follow the illegal policies. If I actually wanted an iPhone, I would love to go try to buy one, then sue the vendor when they refuse to take my cash. Unfortunately, I avoid supporting unethical companies and even if Apple was ethical before this (they were not, just for the record), this single act is totally unethical.
Now for the illegal export thing. Since when did a seller have any control over how a buyer uses the product he bought? How is it that our nation's laws allow a company to tell us what we are allowed to do with something that we have bought and paid for? First, this is not about software patents (although, it applies equally), this is about physical products that a US citizen has bought in the US and has sole ownership of. An Apple iPhone is such a product, just as a bag of marbles, or a pack of baseball cards is. If Apple can restrict the resale of the iPhone outside the US, then Fleer can restrict the trade and sale of the baseball cards it prints and sells. Imagine someone getting sued for trading a shooter for three steelies (marbles). Now, you may say that the marbles are just simple pieces of glass and the cards, just paper and ink, but isn't the iPhone just plastic, sand, and metal? How does making it into a more complex product suddenly give the seller rights over it, even after the seller no longer owns the product? When does a marble become so complex that the seller can restrict resale or trade of it?
Now for the root of the problem. I have an European friend that took his wife to Egypt for their honeymoon. They bought a piece of art from a street vendor while they were there. Fortunately they had hired a guide. The shop's posted price for the object was equivalent to between $25-$30 US dollars. The guide was able to secure the art work for them for only $2.50 US. This is very common in foreign countries. Foreigners are regularly charged much higher prices than the locals. Tourists often hire guides, because the local guide knows what the actual value of the merchandise is and can help the tourists get more reasonable prices. Increasing prices for foreigners is common, even in countries where haggling is not common.
In the US, it is different. Nobody in the US haggles anymore. Most stores are not run directly by the owner and the employees are not authorized to sell products for less than their marked prices. Even the small businesses that are run directly by the owner are not likely to haggle. You will probably get a strange look, or even get kicked out, if you try. Ironically, US citizens get ripped off regardless of where in the world they are. In foreign countries, we get the tourist prices, and in the US, the corporations charge much more than they need to. Want evidence of this?
Have you ever heard of an “international edition” of a book? How about region codes for DVDs? These are mechanics used primarily by US industry for ripping off US citizens. DVD region codes exist so that media producers can charge different prices in different regions of the world, without having to worry about lower priced regions selling DVDs cheap to higher priced regions (DVD players are programmed to only read DVDs from the region the player was sold in). International editions of books are printed with a warning inside the front cover stating that it is illegal to sell the book within the US. Again, the intent is to prevent to resale of the book within the US.
Now, it may seem nice that these companies are scaling prices based on the ability of people to afford the product. In reality, if the company is selling the product for $10 cheaper outside the US, they are extorting an extra $10 out of US citizens. They would not be selling the product outside the US at all if the sales were not generating profits. This means that they are tacking on an extra $10 to their profit margin, to sell the product in a location that is cheaper and easier to reach, because we can afford it. In other words, they are ripping us off. What's worse is, our own government is helping them to do it.
The fact that US law allows a company retain control over the resale of products that they have already sold is disgusting. Actually, this is playing a large part in the economic issues currently plaguing the US. Consider, the exchange rate for money is supposed to reflect the actual value of the money in the countries in question (more often than not, the exchange rate is based more on what banks are willing to trade than what the money is actually worth). If a DVD in the US costs $15 US (this is pretty common right now) and the same DVD is priced at the equivalent of $10 US in a foreign country, that will drive the value of that country's money up, at the same time as driving the value of the US dollar down. (And note that if the manufacturer adjusts prices to reflect changes in exchange rate, this effect is amplified.) Same thing with any product that is priced differently based on location. If the price is cheaper in one place than another and the currencies used are different, the value of the currency of the lower priced region will increase and the value of the currency of the higher priced region will decrease. So, not only are these companies ripping us off directly, they are lowering the value of our money indirectly. Again, our own government is helping them to do it. (Oh, and note that by refusing to accept cash tender, Apple is directly lowering the value of our currency.)
Now, I would like to see the laws that protect to people enforced. The government has been protecting businesses like Apple from minor losses for much too long. I want to see Apple get their pants sued off over this. I also would like to see every vendor that has enforced this illegal policy pay as well. If a company does not know the laws of the country they are operating in, the should not be there. Fines for everyone! (And not these puny ones, real fines, with lots of zeros. We need to start paying off the national debt.)
Lord Rybec
Ok, I am wrong. It was the iPad. Furthermore, Apple has changed their policy as a result of complaints: See article here
Still, Apple should at least get fined, as they did break the law by refusing to accept legal tender as payment.
So, I've heard rumors that Apple iPhones cannot be bought with cash. The rumors say that the purchase of an iPhone must be paid with check, debit, or credit card. Since when has the government rescinded the part of US cash currency that says it is “legal tender for all debts, public or private”? Take a bill out of your pocket, right now, and look at the front face. Near the top left corner you will notice several lines of small text. Read it. The last time I checked, there was only one single instance in which a person or business could refuse US tender. This instance is that more than 25 cents in pennies is not considered legal tender.
The rumor say the reason that Apple has made this policy is so that an iPhone sale can be easily traced. The intent is to prevent iPhones bought in the US from being illegally exported. While I understand their concern, it disgusts me that they are willing to enforce policies on their sellers which are totally and entirely illegal. What disgusts me worse is that their vendors actually follow the illegal policies. If I actually wanted an iPhone, I would love to go try to buy one, then sue the vendor when they refuse to take my cash. Unfortunately, I avoid supporting unethical companies and even if Apple was ethical before this (they were not, just for the record), this single act is totally unethical.
Now for the illegal export thing. Since when did a seller have any control over how a buyer uses the product he bought? How is it that our nation's laws allow a company to tell us what we are allowed to do with something that we have bought and paid for? First, this is not about software patents (although, it applies equally), this is about physical products that a US citizen has bought in the US and has sole ownership of. An Apple iPhone is such a product, just as a bag of marbles, or a pack of baseball cards is. If Apple can restrict the resale of the iPhone outside the US, then Fleer can restrict the trade and sale of the baseball cards it prints and sells. Imagine someone getting sued for trading a shooter for three steelies (marbles). Now, you may say that the marbles are just simple pieces of glass and the cards, just paper and ink, but isn't the iPhone just plastic, sand, and metal? How does making it into a more complex product suddenly give the seller rights over it, even after the seller no longer owns the product? When does a marble become so complex that the seller can restrict resale or trade of it?
Now for the root of the problem. I have an European friend that took his wife to Egypt for their honeymoon. They bought a piece of art from a street vendor while they were there. Fortunately they had hired a guide. The shop's posted price for the object was equivalent to between $25-$30 US dollars. The guide was able to secure the art work for them for only $2.50 US. This is very common in foreign countries. Foreigners are regularly charged much higher prices than the locals. Tourists often hire guides, because the local guide knows what the actual value of the merchandise is and can help the tourists get more reasonable prices. Increasing prices for foreigners is common, even in countries where haggling is not common.
In the US, it is different. Nobody in the US haggles anymore. Most stores are not run directly by the owner and the employees are not authorized to sell products for less than their marked prices. Even the small businesses that are run directly by the owner are not likely to haggle. You will probably get a strange look, or even get kicked out, if you try. Ironically, US citizens get ripped off regardless of where in the world they are. In foreign countries, we get the tourist prices, and in the US, the corporations charge much more than they need to. Want evidence of this?
Have you ever heard of an “international edition” of a book? How about region codes for DVDs? These are mechanics used primarily by US industry for ripping off US citizens. DVD region codes exist so that media producers can charge different prices in different regions of the world, without having to worry about lower priced regions selling DVDs cheap to higher priced regions (DVD players are programmed to only read DVDs from the region the player was sold in). International editions of books are printed with a warning inside the front cover stating that it is illegal to sell the book within the US. Again, the intent is to prevent to resale of the book within the US.
Now, it may seem nice that these companies are scaling prices based on the ability of people to afford the product. In reality, if the company is selling the product for $10 cheaper outside the US, they are extorting an extra $10 out of US citizens. They would not be selling the product outside the US at all if the sales were not generating profits. This means that they are tacking on an extra $10 to their profit margin, to sell the product in a location that is cheaper and easier to reach, because we can afford it. In other words, they are ripping us off. What's worse is, our own government is helping them to do it.
The fact that US law allows a company retain control over the resale of products that they have already sold is disgusting. Actually, this is playing a large part in the economic issues currently plaguing the US. Consider, the exchange rate for money is supposed to reflect the actual value of the money in the countries in question (more often than not, the exchange rate is based more on what banks are willing to trade than what the money is actually worth). If a DVD in the US costs $15 US (this is pretty common right now) and the same DVD is priced at the equivalent of $10 US in a foreign country, that will drive the value of that country's money up, at the same time as driving the value of the US dollar down. (And note that if the manufacturer adjusts prices to reflect changes in exchange rate, this effect is amplified.) Same thing with any product that is priced differently based on location. If the price is cheaper in one place than another and the currencies used are different, the value of the currency of the lower priced region will increase and the value of the currency of the higher priced region will decrease. So, not only are these companies ripping us off directly, they are lowering the value of our money indirectly. Again, our own government is helping them to do it. (Oh, and note that by refusing to accept cash tender, Apple is directly lowering the value of our currency.)
Now, I would like to see the laws that protect to people enforced. The government has been protecting businesses like Apple from minor losses for much too long. I want to see Apple get their pants sued off over this. I also would like to see every vendor that has enforced this illegal policy pay as well. If a company does not know the laws of the country they are operating in, the should not be there. Fines for everyone! (And not these puny ones, real fines, with lots of zeros. We need to start paying off the national debt.)
Lord Rybec
Ok, I am wrong. It was the iPad. Furthermore, Apple has changed their policy as a result of complaints: See article here
Still, Apple should at least get fined, as they did break the law by refusing to accept legal tender as payment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)