DeCSS, crypto, law, and economics

[Eric Rescorla]

Pete Chown <Pete.Chown at skygate.co.uk> writes:
> One last point is that governments serve the interests primarily of
> their own people.  So the job of Britain's government is to get me,
> and other Brits, the best possible deal on films within the UK.  This
> might mean balancing the interests of British consumers against
> British film producers.  It doesn't mean balancing British consumers
> against foreign film producers.  If no films were made in Britain, the
> government would logically insist on a completely free market that
> allowed parallel imports and circumvention measures.

Maybe. Not necessarily if that meant that no new movies ever got
made. Now, the UK isn't a big enough market for this, but consider
what would happen if the US said "listen, free drugs would be great
for consumers so let's get rid of all drug patents". This would
probably dramatically increase social welfare at the moment, since
there are quite a few people who would buy drugs if they were
cheaper. (It's of course not Pareto dominant). However, it seems
likely that this would have such a negative effect on future
production that it would lower social welfare in the future.

-Ekr

-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   ekr at rtfm.com]
                http://www.rtfm.com/

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