Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kalanyr" data-source="post: 1554623" data-attributes="member: 190">Yeah there's a conflict between it and the economical model society uses but there's no internal conflict between the two I said. I'm basically saying if I have $20, I will not buy a $40 book, this is undeniably true, now however if I can download it for $2, I may do so. The existing model doesn't work perfectly becaue of this, many sales are lost because customers can't afford to buy the book (even thoug they would for some fraction of the price) so money is potentially lost , the only way to effectively get the maximum out of it would be to do as Sigil suggested and gradually lower the price, but thats not going to work on the long term because eventually even people who can pay $x will wait to pay $x/2 because people don't like spending more than they can, a perfect model just isn't going to happen I guess, since the extrapolation of the customer model results in everyone paying $0 (as you said) and the produced then making nothing.  But back to my original point the book published clearly hasn't lost $40, because he never would have gotten it anyway. While he's still lost some amount of money (potentially $20) if he'd reduced the price later, its not exactly fair to say its equivalent to stealing a $40 book (in which case the author won't get $40 from the thief and he won't get however much he could have legitimantly sold it for either (potentiall $40)). (Of course  since even if I do download it for $2 I may buy it later when it drops to $20, so the end result is that the seller has lost absolutely nothing to me (I couldn't have paid $40, and in the end I paid the $20 I might have paid (I've actually lost $2 for the privellege of seeing it before I could afford it) , gets kinda wierd really, because there's no physical object taken.)Edit - 3 AM maths.</blockquote>

Verification