[cblades]

>There is value in scarcity

I'd argue that for easily digitized works, there's no such thing as scarcity.

Certainly publishers have the right to sue and limit legal distribution, but it does seem at least naive for them to believe they can control illegal distribution. Perhaps that's not the rationale; maybe it's a purely principled stance.

Nevertheless, their work will be spread digitally, and it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to not have some legal form of distribution that the publisher can make money from.

[jimrhods23]

"I'd argue that for easily digitized works, there's no such thing as scarcity."

Since AI can't create great pieces of art or digital works in a short amount of time, there still is scarcity.

[nxrabl]

What you seem to be arguing for is the scarcity of artists, rather than of art.

[cblades]

I meant that for existing works of art that are easily digitized (not created, taken from a physical format to a digital one), there is no such thing as scarcity if the consumers don't strongly prefer the physical version to the digital version.