"Pro-Pedophile" Activist Group Celebrates As Germany Decriminalizes Child Porn Possession

submitted by xoenix from (reduxx.info)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]x0x7 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

It should. But you probably won't see much impact because it is only Germany. I have the misfortune of being an econ-nerd. You know, the dismal science that constantly tells you the opposite of what you want to hear. One problem is that any ban on a media is the same as two separate policies, one applies risk to paying parties, and another applies risk to non-paying parties. The issue is that applying risk to non-paying parties is identical to copyright policy from an economic point of view. The intent of policy is always irrelevant to economics. Same policy with different intent gives the same results. Demand doesn't actually coordinate with supply in media exchanges until you apply that risk. That's why copyright exists.

But the deminishment of demand from Germany is not going to relinquish the demand from everywhere else so commercial production is going to continue.

[–]IMissPorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Interesting take. So you're saying that to some extent, being it illegal actually helps producers by creating scarcity?

[–]x0x7 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. Did you know that pornography in general is illegal in Russia. Yet somehow there is an entire industry of porn there. You can't ban media. If you try to ban racist media online you are going to get the same effect.

D = VC * min(1,RF/VF)-RC. Demand for commercial media exchange equals (each variable taken as a distribution), the perceived value of the commercial media times the perceived risk of free consumption divided by the perceived value of free consumption capped at one minus the perceived risk of commercial consumption.

Something to note is that a distribution minus a distribution is never zero. So no amount of applying risk to commercial consumers will ever dismantle the commercial market. This is why we've failed at the war on drugs and why prohibitions never work absolutely.

But if the risk of free is zero then you effectively multiply the demand curve by zero. This is why when you analyze it you separate the prohibition into two separate policies. The first one multiplies the demand curve (with a limit) and the second one subtracts the demand curve. Of course multiplication and subtraction work different for distributions, but you'll have to take a math course and I can't cover that here.

That formula is how you calculate the demand curve of media exchange. Remember the units of demand are dollars and its what actually motivates producers.

That min(1,RF/VF) is called the window of coordination. It's a distribution but the more like 1 it is the more the market behaves like a typical commodities market. If for everyone RF>VF then you have a plain commodities market. The curve that division usually causes is a lot like (1/x-1)*p. Where p is |RF|/|VF|. So the window, once capped, is a lot like a box around 0,0,1,1 and the curve goes through that box. The more full that box is the more media behaves like physical exchanges. When the box is zero there is no market.

[–]IMissPorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So theoretically the most targeted attack on commercial production would be to legalize possession and free distribution, but keep it illegal to buy and sell. But needless to say, I don't think this would be palatable to most people, as rational as it might be. It also seems like current laws have already suppressed commercial production pretty successfully (much more so than with drugs, I'd say).

But outside economy considerations, do wonder if the current approach is the best way of addressing what we (should) care about most: reducing the number of children molested. Chasing people who download CP doesn't directly save any kids, so is it a good use of resources? Do producers ever go unpunished because CP is so "toxic" that some people are afraid to report having seen it? That kind of thing.