One clear case where copyright infringement will be Pareto-optimal is where the infringer had no way to pay anyway, so there is no question of there having been a lost sale. (With a caveat: one assumption is that the consequences of not stealing something are negligible, so stealing food to not starve isn’t modeled properly, and the Pareto-optimal level of theft is thus probably above zero for certain actual physical goods with detectable unit costs, when those goods are life-necessities.)
Theorists have shown that for material goods, the Pareto-optimal level of theft is zero, but the Pareto-optimal level of copyright infringement is significantly above zero. Similarly, if I want to read a book or listen to a piece of music, I may well have to pay royalties, even though an additional digital copy costs nothing to produce. And any drop in ridership from the sticker price turns into extra greenhouse emissions somewhere, somehow - usually out of the tailpipe of a private car somewhere. Making it even partly a for-profit enterprise results in less-dense and poorer areas being underserved as well as excluding and limiting use by the people who need it most (those unable to afford cars of their own).
#Hey fellas is it gay meme free#
Imagine your bus company claimed a monopoly on the entire route and driving your own car on any of the same streets required paying the bus company a fare.Īll that being said, I think public transportation ought to be free and wholly subsidized by the state anyway.
There’s a substantial increase in marginal fuel consumption per passenger.Īt the same time, in many cases information “piracy” is third-party-to-third-party transmission that doesn’t even consume the originator’s server resources, even at fractional-penny levels. If I get on the bus, I have to pay the fare, even though the bus is going that way anyway.