[schex86]

However, in the case of libraries, at their founding at least, the intent was purely to negate the harmful effects of scarcity for the betterment of all mankind. Implementing a system of artificial scarcity to protect an industry, whether or not that industry is dependent on the efforts of so-called artisans, is overall harmful and detracts from the general betterment of everyone else as, in this case, it unnecessarily restricts their access to useful information. While this may benefit a specific group, the effect on the whole will always be a net loss.

And an author, as an individual, does have inherent rights. But these do not include imposing his will on society at large with the sole intent of bettering himself and his compatriots in a financial sense. It is rather, as I've already stated, up to the society in general, or its government specifically, to make determinations on how it will handle its collective knowledge.

The argument then seems to be, the concern for the government, that lacking financial incentive, less artists will produce art. However, that is extremely lacking in historical support, as really, any type of art is simply a condition of human behavior, and it will continue on inexorably in one form or another.

Incentive is comprised of much more than financial compensation. Prestige, influence, self-fulfillment, helping others, bettering society, are all critical aspects of art that IMO far overshadow the purely economic motive. And where is it decreed that artists must only "do" art, and not employ themselves gainfully in other fields? Is this their right?? At the expense of what and whom??

You see, when you remove scarcity, you open up a wealth of possibilities that heretofore were unimaginable. And though there may be many wrenches currently clogging the potentials of the digital revolution, it is my position that we, as a society, MUST look past petty concerns, kind of like what Ben Franklin did with his library, in our efforts to fully leverage the benefits of our collective knowledge and understanding.

If publishing companies no longer existed in their current form, if less authors wrote solely for financial gain, yet more wrote with the intention of aiding their fellow man, and the net effect was that through the benefit gained by all, more and more people had the time to contribute their own writings, their own art, to their society, then I ask, what have we lost? But more importantly, what have we gained or what will we gain?

It is, really, up to us.