[rayiner]

We have had, for hundreds of years, technology that makes the cost of each marginal copy of a creative work some tiny percentage of what people are willing to pay for that work. Digital technology making that percentage even smaller doesn't fundamentally change anything. There is nothing magic about "essentially zero cost" copies versus "negligible cost" copies.

This is largely because our whole system of property is structured so that marginal cost is broadly irrelevant. We have a pervasive notion in our system that people are entitled to the "benefit of the bargain." That is to say, people are entitled to profit from the difference in price people are willing to pay for something, based on supply and demand, and the marginal cost of producing that something. That's why Apple can sell for $600 iPhones that cost only $207 to produce, or why Louis Vuitton can sell for thousands of dollars handbags that cost maybe $100 to produce. The marginal cost of production is irrelevant, from the buyers viewpoint, in anything we buy. So why should it be different for digital goods?

[tracker1]

I have more issues with even the concept of software and design patents far more than copyright.. wrt copyright, I only feel the terms have gotten out of control.

With software patents, I firmly believe that if an implementation isn't either difficult or novel, it shouldn't be patented... Example, the apple page-flip animation. The effect is a simulation of a real-world behavior (non-novel), and the implementation details are very simple (given the hardware interfaces are mostly solved, as are the computational logistics as problems solved). The hardware involved could certainly be patentable, as could the original implementations (now older than patents). For the most part, anything that simulates a real-world activity on a generally available computing hardware should not be patentable, it's usually very obvious, and often trivial to implement.

I also feel that even if software patents were to be protected, it should be much more limited, perhaps 5 years. If you can't gain an advantage in software with a 5 year head start, you don't deserve to win. That's just how I feel about it.

[czr80]

You're right, the marginal cost argument is wrong, and yet there is something different going on here and I think I know what it is: The fundamental change here is that customers own the means of reproducing the product and reproduction costs are equal to the marginal cost. How much could Apple sell an iPhone for if the same was true? What would Apple do to remain in business?

[msellout]

I think that's worth repeating: "the ownership of the means of production has changed". Intentionally rephrased to allude to a certain economist.

[dfj225]

It wasn't my intention to focus on economics or digital products. What I am really arguing is the more fundamental aspect of information and the ability to copy and transmit it with 100% accuracy at great speed. This, I think, separates digital technology from all others. It's what makes it revolutionary and desirable. I think the impacts on society are obvious.

Edit: typos