Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
I disagree with the use of the term "artificial scarcity." The abundance or lack of any given product is simply the decision of the creator/producer of that product. If I write a book I may decide not to make it available at all. That is not an "artificial scarcity" it is simply my decision as the creator/owner of that product.
|
What does it take to produce anything? Raw materials, tools, and technique. It doesn't matter what you're creating, those are the requirements. If you place legal restriction on any of those items, you are artificially restricting production. The more abundant the materials are, the more restrictions to production are embedded by legal restrictions.
Give me a forge, a lump of iron, (raw materials) and tools and I'll make you an axe. The technique is thousands of years old. However, if you limit the use of the technique to members of the blacksmith's guild, then I can't. And that restricts production of axes.
What does it take to produce a copy of something in the digital world. A source of information (raw materials), a computer and a copying program, (tools), and a mouse click (my labor, as required to forge an axe). But if you make laws (I.P. laws) that say I can't copy something, that's an artificial restriction to production, same as the axe example above. Limited by law, not by ability to produce another copy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
I don't necessarily think the laws are perfect either, particularly given the digital world, but the concept behind them is still correct. Right or wrong or even regardless of corruption the Rule of Law is what the country is built on and must follow. If the law is wrong we the people should work to change it. If corruption exists we the people should work to remove it. If the system as a whole isn't working, that's what the 2nd Amendment is for.  |
Meanwhile, all cheer the status quo. Sorry it was people who didn't cheer, and broke the law, who caused
Plessey 1890 to be overturned...