>These artificial scarcity rules help make creativity economically possible. This is the common utilitarian refrain, though utilitarian arguments usually inclu

>These artificial scarcity rules help make creativity economically possible. This is the common utilitarian refrain, though utilitarian arguments usually include some cost-benefit analysis. In the IP debate, it is simply (and erroneously) assumed to be a net positive. >3. If prospective investors know that copiers will quickly destroy the ability to charge money... Then perhaps it's not a sustainable business model. Perhaps that's why they spend money on such things as DRM, or making online-only services. Perhaps, in the absence of state coercion, some other things will be invented to deal with the potential loss of profit. >4. So while copyright infringement may not seem like stealing, it can have a remarkably similar economic effect. What "effect" would that be, less profit? And thus activities of others which result in less profit for you should be illegal? I'm sure you don't think that, but it necessarily falls out of your utilitarian position. The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.