But your argument implies that all video and audio and text content should be free. But it's not -- we pay content creators to create it, and if we didn't, a lot of that content wouldn't get created.
And to play the devil's advocate here: The supply of all video and audio and text content is ~infinite because of torrents, so the laws of supply and demand dictate that its price fall to ~0 for any finite demand.
As an example, if tomorrow I invented a machine that made unlimited free copies of soybeans and distributed those copies for ~$0 to any internet connected location on earth, the market value of soybeans would very quickly approach zero.
Whether or not my machine is illegal would be quite immaterial to the laws of economics, which would continue to propagate information about supply and demand through prices so long as my machine was working.
Of course, the same is true of corn and also intangible goods like massages [0]. By induction you might claim that the story for mp3's is the same.
[0] If you find a machine that gives unlimited massages at a distance, let me know immediately
And to play the devil's advocate here: The supply of all video and audio and text content is ~infinite because of torrents, so the laws of supply and demand dictate that its price fall to ~0 for any finite demand.
Nonono. The laws of supply and demand you're talking about only obtain under conditions of perfect competition, where goods are perfect substitutes for each other - commodity markets being the closest real-world example. By this argument, the price of opera should fall to zero because there's an oversupply of EDM and pop music. But if you want to listen to opera, chances are that you're not going to be satisfied by a new Katy Perry tune.
Of course you're right about that---the market value of a rare, non-torrentable opera recording ought not to be zero. But in practice the overwhelming majority of all content that anyone ever wants is eminently torrentable. I am not claiming that opera == Katy Perry, but rather that each of those has unlimited supply.
I said almost zero, not zero. And even the cheapest hardware comes is still orders of magnitude away from the cheapness of copying bits. Also, I never said the parties involved in copying bits shouldn't bear the cost of doing so.
You said the cost for the copying/transferring of bits was almost zero, and I believe you said that programming languages should be free, because they are so cheap.
I countered that very cheap hardware would have to be free, following that logic.
Who are you to say what is cheap and what is not? Not to mention that orders of magnitude greater than almost zero is potentially still almost zero.
