<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Copyright And Incentives,&nbsp;Ctd]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>A reader writes:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/copyright-and-incentives.html">Yglesias and Bunch</a> are each correct in different ways, but Yglesias has the better argument here.&#0160; Bunch, willfully or not, ignores the fact that while the intellectual property laws -- and this goes beyond music and even beyond copyright into patent law -- were intended to protect the creation of intellectual property, they have come to be used largely to protect the <em>distribution</em> of intellectual property.&#0160; At some point in the life of a creation -- and we can have a legitimate argument about when that point is reached -- the distribution of a work becomes divorced from its creation.</p></blockquote>]]></html></oembed>