Acland's DVD Atlas of Anatomy.

[Dr Spike Hilton]

Actually annual university fees for medicine are 25k euro in my neck of the woods, with the government paying half;Unfortunately not all universities have bought the videos. With respect, like Dr. Acland, your argument is based on emotion. I really don't feel strongly at all about my position but I am still waiting for someone to tell me why someone in possession of a limitless resource (digital video) is not ethically obliged to share it with someone who can not afford to pay for it and would get great use from it given: - the person -genuinely- can not afford it, and will not share it with anyone else. I still do not see where the owner will lose out here, if the rules are stuck to. If anything the owner -will- receive benefits in the future as the medical student will one day earn good money and should feel ethically obliged to pay a kind sum for a past kind deed.

"Just because you can't pay for something doesn't mean that you're entitled to it for free!"
If you read what I said again you should see I was not suggesting that. I am talking about a very specific set of circumstances, ie the -something- is limitless, and the owner should feel like giving it rather than being entitled to it. I don't see how the cost will go up and other people will pay since the revenue stream will be identical whether the people I mentioned get it for free or not.

Again this is all purely theoretical since impossible to put into practice but I suppose the one thing I would say to anyone who has actually downloaded the torrent of the aclands atlas of anatomy is that you might think to actually buy the dvds when you do have the money in future as is your ethical obligation!

Spike.

[Pammy]

No, no, no...This is basic economics!

My argument is not based on emotion but on the fact that we live in a market economy of sorts, not in a charity. Someone always, always has to pay.

The pianist has to pay to rent out the concert hall. If only 1 person pays for a ticket and he admits 99 for free, then he has misjudged demand for his services, but he will still have to pay for the hall. This means he increases the price for his tickets in another town, one where he knows the people are desperate to hear him, to cover his costs.

It is the same with the DVD. If very few people want to buy it, than the opportunity cost for those who don't pay was obviously too high. In other words, the DVD is not worth enough to them to e.g. get a job to pay for it. This means, in the worst case, the author has misjudged demand for his DVD (few people are willing to give up time to get money to pay for it, so it is not worth that much to them - of course they would take it for free, anyone would take anything for free and possibly make good use of it). If he has, he still has to recoup the costs. This means he has to increase the price, because there will always be some desperate students (in danger of failing exams, or with rich parents) and some universities who want the best for their students, who will pay, and who will pay a higher price.

There is no free ride - someone has to pay, if other people get something apparently for free! It is not an ethical problem at all. It is a simple economics problem.

Imagine a company bakes breads. They pay employees, they buy ingredients, they make 10000 breads, but realise very quickly that only few people will buy them as they're very healthy but too expensive, and people instead opt for cheap rolls. Now your argument would be that they wouldn't lose any money if they just gave the rest away because else they have to throw them away. The point is, they have already lost the money, just like the person who made the DVD has already invested his time (which is worth money). This is called "sunk costs" I believe and they are easily overlooked. They need to get back that money somehow. Perhaps some rich people will donate to a charity, and the charity will buy up 5000 breads and sell them half-price to poor people? Possible, but someone has paid for it!

[Dr Spike Hilton]

There are two possible scenarios for the gig with one ticket buyer:
1) The pianist performs for the one person who buys the ticket and then raises costs in another town to cover his losses.
2) The pianist performs for 1+99 gratis and then raises costs in another town.

The increased costs in another town are not due to letting 99 people listen for free;The pianist has made the mistake playing in that town and will raise costs whether he plays for free or not.

Same goes for the bakery;It is like throwing out 5000 bread rolls when there is a starving community you can pass them to instead. If the bakery can sell the bread as you say, then it is not an ethical problem. But if they can not, then are they not ethically obliged to give the bread to the hungry, rather then throwing them to waste? If you believe the breadrolls should not be wasted, then it is the same to say the 99 seats should not be wasted. I am not saying someone else doesn't pay for the rolls/seats, I'm saying, if someone else has to pay -anyway- then may as well get some use out of them. So, to me it sounds like an ethical issue rather than an economic one.

[chicken66]

Spike if it's an ethical issue to you then why dont you speak to your university about them getting copies of Aclands? Then you could have a licenced copy, and everyone else on your course could have access too - with increased benefit for all involved. Your way only you benefit, my way everyone benefits

[Dr Spike Hilton]

That is definitely the sensible and ethical way to go! :-)

[Pammy]

That's a good idea (and you do pay fees so you could be expected to be able to have a bit of a say in your teaching...), and goes hand in hand with what I was going to reply!

Which is: of course you're right if you isolate the events...If this only happens once to the pianist/bread company, they won't suffer. But what if this is a regular occurrence? Then, if they continue to perform for free/give away the bread, they'll go bankrupt, and there'll be no more bread/concerts for anyone. This just means, their services weren't valued enough.

Of course it won't harm the DVD guy if he sells enough copies overall, and just gives you one for free out of utter kindness. However, why should you, and you alone have it? If enough people want it for free, he goes into debt, or he has to increase the price drastically so that everyone else (the rich parents and truly desperate students) have to pay for you - which, if you argue along ethical lines, is also clearly unfair, as you could e.g. babysit for a friend for a few hours and pay for your copy if it's worth that much to you...

It's like: we can't just print more money for everyone (inflation...) but clearly it wouldn't harm overall if someone just printed some for you. But that's not really fair...

Anyway, enough of this discussion, think we were partly talking past each other, I do really hope you get your copy, as the whole thing looks pretty good. I'm on the lookout for anatomy resources as well at the moment but will wait till I get to uni in 2 months and see what they have paid for with the money they charge me :-)

[bennett]

We get Dr. Robert Ackland here! How cool!