When deciding if health care resource allocation policies are fair, the average person rates them as more fair when framed positively than when it is framed negatively, even though there is no real difference in the result.
For example, if you describe a policy as the one that will be used to decide who gets a heart transplant, it will seem more fair than if you describe the same policy as the one that will be used to decide who doesn't get one. This is the case even if they know that there are only X number of hearts available (so for each person who gets one, there is by definition a person who doesn't).
What does this show? In addition to showing that the average person's decision making processes are flawed, it also present policy guidance. The way you sell the policy has as much to do with whether it is accepted by the public as the policy itself. Maybe more.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Fashion Copyrights
Great guest post over at Freakonomics on copyright issues in the fashion industry. The blogger, an expert on the fashion business, explains why fashion copyrights are counterproductive. Fashions change very quickly, especially at the high end, that are most dependent on their intellectual property. By the time the pirates come out with volume copying, the high end has already moved on. So it doesn’t really hurt.
And it also helps. The pirating brings attention to the original designer and gives him or her the credibility and authority as a top designer. So by enhancing his/her street cred, it makes his/her new desgns that much more attractive. They call this the piracy paradox, but it makes perfect sense to me.
It is a good example of how copyright law has to be designed in consideration of the economics and dynamics of the industry. Let’s hope that policymakers and activist judges don’t mess it up. And also that they generalize this approach to other areas that probably need copyright protections to be relaxed a bit – think digital music!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
