Instead of SOPA, Beat Piracy With Better Product > Supply and Demand

It is because scarcity doesn't exist in a digital world where everything is infinitely copyable. Decent content will be widely available no matter what.

So what does this all have to do with your comment? Everything. To simply assert "scarcity doesn't exist in a digital world because it's technically possible to copy digital works" is ignoring all the ways mankind has built up businesses and markets and even economies around artificially scarce goods. There is no reason that it's not possible to create artificial scarcity around digital goods. It's happening all the time right in front of you.

Like in non-digital markets, artificial scarcity in digital markets requires an enforcement mechanism.

Except that it's not just "technically possible". Computers were designed to easily handle digital data. Copying that data has been one of the core functions of computers since they were first invented.

To create scarcity in digital files, you have to essentially break the proper functioning of the computer. To keep people from ripping DVDs or Blu-Rays, you need to introduce some method of keeping the system from reading data from discs, or prevent ripping programs from running, both of which are at odds with how the computer was designed to function. To prevent people from sharing or making copies of digital downloads, you need some method of keeping the system from playing those files, which is also at odds with what it was designed to do.

Do they also require penalties that are higher than those for physical goods?

Shoplifting is also a big problem, but I don't recall Walmart lobbying the government to impose special $20,000 fines and multi-year prison sentences or to make it an automatic felony.

To create scarcity in digital files, you have to essentially break the proper functioning of the computer. To keep people from ripping DVDs or Blu-Rays, you need to introduce some method of keeping the system from reading data from discs, or prevent ripping programs from running, both of which are at odds with how the computer was designed to function. To prevent people from sharing or making copies of digital downloads, you need some method of keeping the system from playing those files, which is also at odds with what it was designed to do.

It's like trying to create a physical book that can only be read by one person.

So is putting material in paper money that makes it look different when copied "essentially breaking the proper functioning of a copy machine"? which has been "the core function of copy machines since they were first invented"? And is this "at odds with what it was designed to do"?

Not really relevant to the topic. But, I'll come back on your analogy with what the music distributors would say, which has some validity. Shoplifting one CD is a loss of 10 bucks or whatever. Putting that CD on MegaUpload or Pirate Bay is like shoplifting the entire store's inventory of that CD. Bigger crime.

But what if the publishing industry demanding a legal solution to prevent people from copying or scanning books? Coming up with a printed page that can be easily read, but which can't be copied would be expensive and virtually impossible. So far the only solution they've come up with for making documents uncopyable is to use black ink on dark paper, which also makes them very hard to read.

The only workable method would to have the copier connect to a central database every time you scan something to compare the hash of what you've scanned with a list of know hashes for copyrighted works and refuse to work if it matches something on the list. Of course such a system would have a high failure rate, false positives and wouldn't account for fair use, essentially breaking the core functionality of the machine, but hey if it keeps people from copying copyrighted material, it's worth it. Right?