upvote
> copyright ownership is not a monopoly because there are other copyrighted works

they are not fungible, unlike houses.

Also, if you could copy a house like you could copy digital goods (i would download a car), i am also going to claim that the "monopoly" on the house must also be shortened.

reply
Sure, there are idiosyncratic preferences and some people really want that one famous work, but there are also idiosyncratic preferences when it comes to houses, and particularly famous houses command a premium, but that doesn't render houses nonfungible. For most people, any house they enjoy living in will do, and any content they enjoy consuming will do.

You would download a house or a car, but the people making new houses or cars would only offer them for download if they can charge enough for each copy to make back their original investment. So houses and cars could be expected to cost about as much as a movie ticket or book or game. That those are currently much cheaper is also an indication that competition is successfully working to drive down prices close to the cost of production.

reply