Yet you are unable to provide any reason or logic yourself for why I am wrong, and ignoring I myself cited an economist. It is ridiculous to assert that free access to a work destroys its value. The only thing it does it decrease the value of gatekeepers whose business depends on being the one to provide access, but this is entirely different than value of the work itself being decreased.

You are confusing the value of a company and its business model with the value of the end work in itself. You consequently ignore how value resides in the ability for a work to be widely used and seen which must consequently come from greater access. Access is only one part of the value in any work, one that actively limits others when it is restricted.

Supporters of intellectual property, and of copyright extension in particular, seem to be blind to such distinction. Landes and Posner, who provide the least incoherent exposition of why retroactive extension of copyright might be a good thing, acknowledge that the “assessment of welfare effects of congestion requires distinguishing technological from mere pecuniary externalities.” They then go on to say, concerning the Mickey Mouse character, “If because copyright had expired anyone were free to incorporate the Mickey Mouse character in a book, movie, song, etc., the value of the character might plummet.” The value for whom? It cannot be the social value of the Mickey Mouse character that plummets – this increases when more people have access. Rather it is the market price of copies of the Mickey Mouse character that plummets. As Landes and Posner admit, “If this came about only…as the ordinary consequence of an increase in output, aggregate value would actually increase.” They then assert “however, the public might rapidly tire of Mickey Mouse.” But this is in fact the ordinary consequence of an increase in output. If I eat a large meal, I am less hungry – the value to me of a meal is diminished, and restaurants will find I am not willing to pay them much money. No externality is involved: as more of a good is consumed, the more tired people become of it. For there to be an externality, it would have to be the case that my consumption of Mickey Mouse made you more tired of it – an improbability, to say the least.

Although Landes and Posner make the distinction between pecuniary and technological externality, they do not appear to understand it. They quote from a book on Disney marketing: “To avoid overkill, Disney manages its character portfolio with care. It has hundreds of characters on its books, many of them just waiting to be called out of retirement…Disney practices good husbandry of its characters and extends the life of its brands by not overexposing them…They avoid debasing the currency.” This is of course exactly how we would expect a monopolist to behave. If Disney were to be given a monopoly on food, we can be sure they would practice “good husbandry” of food, most likely leaving us all on the edge of starvation. This would be good for Disney, since we would all be willing to pay a high price for food. But the losses to the rest of us would far outweigh the gain to Disney. It is a relief to know that, after all, Mickey Mouse is not such an essential ingredient of the American diet.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/lp.htm