Back then, only another business could afford the equipment and distribution channels necessary to profit from duplicated works. Now publishers can make additional copies so cheaply that anyone can do it. Publishers are in fact no longer necessary for an artist to distribute a work.

Trouble is, anything digital can be duplicated, compressed, redistributed over and over at virtually no cost.

The technology isn’t at fault, the concept of owning information is what’s at fault.

In the end, you may CREATE desirable information, you may HAVE desirable information and you may SELL ACCESS to that information, but if someone else can provide it cheaper, faster or easier, the onus is on you to provide NEW information or perish.

Patents fall under the same natural law: Building a newer better product will bring new purchases with more assurance than trying to prevent other manufacturers from producing a duplicate product.

Pick this apart all you want but it won’t change reality: Intellectual Property is a wish made up by men who preferred litigation to innovation, and any law Man creates to prevent digital replication will fail in the face of the natural law which states that anything in demand will be replicated.

Do you really think that without copyright, art and culture would become worthless?