DeCSS, crypto, law, and economics

[David Turner]

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 10:17, Birger Toedtmann wrote:
> David Turner schrieb am Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 01:29:39PM -0500:
> > On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 05:50, Pete Chown wrote:
> > 
> > > With DVDs we have a complex situation.  Supposedly studios can make more 
> > > per film, so they can afford to make more marginal films. 
> > 
> > To make films which will not make money is not an economically rational
> > action even if one is making other films which do make money. This is
> > the point the 17 economists made in their Eldred amicus.  
> 
> It depends.  In not-so-simple-scenarios, one may use it on behalf of
> PR (attracting people to one's product portfolio) or bind a promising
> new director who will later create a big profit-making film.  Studios
> and publishers use the latter quite frequently I guess.

This is true (and I did mean to add a disclaimer to this effect, but
couldn't find a good sentence structure which made it look
non-awkward).  However, attracting customers and developers needs to be
done whether a studio is making tons and tons or just lots of money on
its directly-profitable films.  That is, making more money on a
high-profit film doesn't encourage a studio to make more low-profit
films in order to attract directors, since they have a need to attract
directors anyway (in order to make *any* films).  The demand for
directors won't decrease with a modest decrease in profit for directly
profit-producing films, since movie studios' needs for directors depends
mainly on how many films they produce, a number which is limited mainly
by consumer demand.  Of course, consumer demand does depend on the
quality of the available movies, which depends (among many other
factors) on directors. 

So, assuming my analysis isn't completely off the wall, market
segmentation doesn't produce more "marginal" films.  On the other hand,
I don't think that the 17 economists are dispositive on this issue, now
that I've given it more thought.

<snip stuff which seemed to me to be about copying>

>   From an economic point of view, excessive copying could result into
>   a situation where music/films become common goods because no one
>   is able to prevent others from using it.  Exit Labels/Studios/Publish-
>   ers.

The issue in this branch of the thread (to mix a metaphor) is not CSS as
copy prevention (at which it does an abysmal job), but CSS as market
segmentation (at which it does a somewhat better job). 

Disclaimer: I'm still not an economist.

-- 
-Dave Turner                     Stalk Me: 617 441 0668

"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters 
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com