Copywrite-Smoppywrite, why society might be better off with fewer monetary incentives

Just a rant, thoughtful article was written by my friend Igor, see links.

Adam Smith wasn't right about everything. For example, trade, which Adam Smith concluded is a natural and spontaneous behavior in human beings is not spontaneous, but only takes place under one set of conditions: when two people find that the other has something they want more than what they have and are both willing to part with what they have. However, there are things that humans do spontaneously: they create.

Creating has an intrinsic value for creators, a value that they take into account when deciding how to spend their time. However, the value of creation for the creator is socially undervalued. Copywrite and patent laws depend on the assumption that creative types would not lift a little finger unless it were for expected commercial profit. Creators will still create without copywrites.

Want to read a book published only for money? Do we want to live in a culture that is cluttered with music and books extracted from creators in exchange for money along side books and music produced because the creator chose to produce it?

Of course, pharmacuetical companies want infinite patents to protect their R and D investements, but is that best for society? It might be profitable to keep everyone sick and on medications, but the market inviability of drug R and D only goes to show that there are more beneficial alternatives for human health. Genetics, stem cell, nano-, and bio-tech, all promise treatments and preventions far more effective and long term than drugs. Lo and behold, in many cases they are cheaper. Could it be that the price mechanism has already identified the obselence of drug therapies in favor of technical treatment and genetic prevention?