Only because we have the technology to make perfect copies of digital images, but not perfect copies of physical objects. If we had that technology -- and there is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents it -- they would be exactly the same. That's the whole point.

They would only be exactly the same at a precise moment in time, and given the source data is timely.

From there, they would diverge.

Three things happen:

One, the data capture representing the object gets dated, and would represent the original at some point in time, not as it is today.

Two, the copy objects would also diverge from both the data and the original.

Finally, the stories related to the objects differ.

The original remains the authority on that particular object. For many things, nobody would care, and I agree with you on all of that.

However, you very seriously under estimate the value history and culture have. And you also are ignoring how a story becomes intertwined with a given object.

As an extreme example, one could say there was some war, and one of the copies of a famous painting was damaged in the war, but owned by someone who won that war at great personal cost.

Now, we've got the original, with historical value, and one copy in particular with value, both above and beyond that value any other copy may have.

For those interested in, perhaps involved in, that war, the relevance of that specific copy, with the damage marks on it, where it's at, who owns it, all differentiate that copy from all other objects.

Things that are exactly the same do not remain the same.

And where that is true, originals will have value above and beyond copies.

I understand your argument. But you are underestimating the impact that my hypothetical atomic copy technology would have.

Consider this scenario: instead of scanning the object, sending the information to some remote location, and recreating the copy at the remote location, the copier works like this: you put an object in, and after some time two objects come out, each atomically identical to the original. Now you really can't tell which is which.

In the case of remote-copy you can tell the difference. But would an alien race really care enough to be willing to pay a lot more for "the original"?

There's actually a similar situation going on right now in the diamond market. DeBeers has spent a lot of money trying to convince people that natural diamonds are somehow better than artificial ones despite the fact that they are absolutely indistinguishable from one another (and so DeBeers is putting a lot of money into developing technology that can mark "authentic" diamonds). IMHO this is a pretty transparent scam, and people fall for it largely out of stupidity or ignorance of chemistry. I believe (or maybe "hope" is a better word here) that any society that can travel to the stars will have moved beyond such foolishness.

History is not foolishness.

I believe the impact will be profound, and in the majority of cases, will play out like you say.

There are some where it won't.