I'm pretty sure if it were possible to create atom for atom identical copies of every van gogh the value of the "original" would plummet. Of course in the real world we have no-cloning theorems, so that isn't possible, information however can be copied at (almost) zero cost and therefore the value of a copy should approach its share of the production cost, which rapidly approaches zero as more copies are made.

I disagree. People would still pay more for the one Van Gogh laid his hand upon. After all if you just wanted to look at the painting you can buy a very high quality reproduction today -- you'd need an expert to know it's a fake. Even experts can be fooled by good forgeries.

Just out of interest. With an atom by atom copy how would one work out which is the original?

By tracking the location history of the object. That's actually how much of the art world protects against forgery. Forgers are very good at copying art works, but artists' estates keep a record of what an artist actually produced.

Just to add on to dash2's comment, the art collection world relies on provenance. Most large art museums (in the US, at least) rarely buy from private collectors for this reason. Items from private collectors are usually donated, and if an item is purchased, it is either through auction (usually the big houses like Sotheby's) or from well-trusted dealers.

You can copy atom for atom, but you can't copy sentimental value.

Of course, the problem is that we could actually lose the ability to assign sentimental value to any one of them. Immagine 10 identical Mona Lisas, only one of them real with the knowledge which since lost. The collection would be worth a lot, but what would be the price of 1 of them?

You should test your theory by starting a a company that makes reproductions of famous paintings and see how fast it takes for classic works of art to become valueless.

The "thank you, keep going on please" argument is a consistent one through out history, but there is a big exception in the last 10 years ago.

Imagine if you want a pay to have a band playing in your bar. If they went in there, broke every table, played music so loud that customers got injured, and then assaulted a few others, would you still feel obligated to pay for their performance? Would you still pay others upfront? A game developer can put malware on your computer, break your hardware, not have a work product, and you are still expected to pay up front for the next game.

Video (as in popcorn time) can do less damage, but then we had the sony root kit and the payment system is also upfront with not guarantee of quality or enjoyment.

One suggested model is a payment system which is "thank you, keep going on please" if you were happy with the service, and a "disputing the credit card charge" if you are not. This has however the problem of being illegal, so it just easier to jump directly to piracy and do donation purchases when/if you like something.

What I mean is that Hollywood treat digital assets as if they are physical assets.

The only thing that stand between Hollywood and a Popcorn like service they could monetize is a decision to treat it as a digital asset and take advantage of it as a digital asset.

> A van gogh isn't more expensive than my drawing because they're rarer or built with rarer materials. Intrinsic value is much more complicated and subtle than that

Actually, value is subjective. For example, if I didn't know I could sell a Van Gogh for a lot of money, it would be just as worthless to me as anything else I don't want.

In other words, a Van Gogh, just like everything else, has no "intrinsic value" that everyone would recognize.

Now if I could buy a Van Gogh for $5000 and sell it for $10000, I'd be happy to buy one. But if I could only sell it for $5500 it wouldn't be worth the trouble for me.

That's subjective value at work again. In the latter case, I'd value the time needed to buy and sell the painting higher than the $500 I could get from the exchange.

I know one thing for sure, you definitely couldn't sell a digital image of a van gogh for a lot of money.

But there are things that are bought, sold, and traded for reasons other than reselling them to someone else for more money. You seem to have a vision of all human economic activity as a pyramid scheme.

Way to put words in my mouth.