My comments (below in italics) aren't all that interesting, but I wanted to keep a hold of it anyway. Plus, Jimmy's posts on DRM Blog rock. I love his mind and the way it immediately finds the axis of a problem, the hinge in a business plan.
DRM Blog was clear that the average Hollywood movie costs $63 million to create. However, intellectual property, copyrights, and DRM in general, has been *accused* of have a zero costs of production.
Regardless, the average pharmaceutical far outreaches the average movie in costs of development. Even if the costs were the same, why are the two industries treated so differently by the same man, Orin Hatch, and by Congress in general?
The argument that pharmaceuticals must be kept more open to generic makes because of their greater benefit to mankind is one reason. However, with the FDA's system of approval that takes sometimes two decades to get approval, the amount of time that a company gets protection on its enormous investment is quickly constrained.
People don't want to pay $150 for a single pill, nor do they want to pay $20 to rebuy all their old titles simply because it's out on a new media, like the windfall profits that music conglomerates made when people switched from tape to CD. People also don't want to have to pay another $20 if their CD breaks because it's against the law to make a personal back-up copy. These aren't production costs that need to be recouped by the companies. It's just extra profit icing that drives people away from legitimately paying for something.
Every person, every company wants to get paid for what they've worked and created. But when a company continually bleeds its customers of their money through collusion, bloated price setting, and no legal way to protect their purchases, it goes beyond getting paid for a product. It's call price-gouging.