This is a serious fallacy, as you have an infinite supply of digital goods with minimal additional cost (bandwidth ?).
That's why the "lower cost, higher volume" model works so greatly.
"devaluing the books" - what a crap. What value are we talking about?
Price? Surely it dropped, but why is that matter when the profit still rise? (also, I don't agree that paying more for something somehow create greater "value". That maybe works for the fashion industry, but not books)
Intellectual Value? And how is that anyhow related to the price of the book? A free and good book is still valuable, while an expensive crap book is still crap.
You're quite sarcastic, Mike, but what the fuck would you do if you faced the nation with the biggest military budget, and is known for bombing political enem... I mean Terrorists without a second thought?
Would you not thread carefully?
You're mocking the little guy for not daring to whack the bodybuilder bully.
The mine was closed after the approval of an amendment to the mining law which banned open-pit mining in the country.
Tough luck. Many bars and pubs were shut down under the Probation, just for one example. You couldn't expect to excepted from law just because you begun operating _before_ the law passed.
The company has already invested $92 million and it claims to have lost $1 billion in potential profit.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The company should (somewhat) rightly claim on the 92M investment it _already_ done. But what the fuck is this about the 1b it _expected_ to gain?! They did not done the work. They did not spend the money on the work, so why are they want to be paid for the resources they did not produce? Because it would have been nice?
Returning to the previous example: A liqueur shop should've sued the govt for lost profits too? They made investment, they expected profits, and they denied it because of a change in laws. If yes, how much profit are they entitled? 1 years? 2? Would that estimation include price fluctuations and other economical variables, or we should accept the word of the company that they didn't pulled the amount from their back side?