[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

This example is a good demonstration of my point: when the copyrighted digital work is not made artificially scarce, it is worthless. Prior to digital copying, that scarcity was not artificial; it actually cost people money to copy and distribute things and those people more often than not were trying to see what they copied.

Someone was distributing that movie for free because the movie did not have value in a market.

[carewell]

> when the copyrighted digital work is not made artificially scarce, it is worthless.

If an artist digitally releases a music album for free - it's worthless? Meaning it has no value? Let's break this down. If I construct a physical object and sell it - it has worth because you can hold it in your hands. If I record an album and release it digitally - it's worthless, despite costing me 100x more than the physical object I created. And despite you appreciating the music 100x more than my physical object. So what defines value? Then physical aspect only? I guess that's a theory, doesn't help to navigate the world increasingly dominated by intangible things, but okay.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> If an artist digitally releases a music album for free - it's worthless?

That is my intended meaning, though it doesn't need to be released for free, only digitally. If the album is a series of mp3 files in a zip archive why would one pay for it when they could just get a perfect copy from their friend (who got it from a friend, who got it from a friend, who got it ...)?

I do know the answer to this question: kindness (Patreon and similar). I don't know market forces to be particularly kind, however.