Wu's article brought up some interesting points about the motives behind intellectual property legislation. In his analysis of modern approaches to IP law, he brings up the notion that "owned assets will gravitate towards their most valuable use". In other words, content that is valueless is largely considered worthless and therefore things that are kept out of the public domain retain their cultural and commercial potential. I personally still disagree with notion because I think that it is more based in fear than fact. However, his wording made more sense of this justification than ever before. This whole idea that intellectual creations have an inherent monetary value is based in the tradition of capitalism that dictates that every piece of hard work will result financial gain. With this in mind, it would make sense that so many people justify strong IP laws with the 'incentive for creation' line. I can understand how a business-focused mind would assume this. However, I argue that there doesn't necessarily need to be a financial incentive present for authors to create. I agree that financial gain creates a living situation that is conducive to creation. But most authors are not measuring their creative conceptions for their economic worth. This argument is purely in the interest of distributors.

briana berry