@dolphin
I'm not trying to say it costs nothing to create movies, music, and software products. I'm saying that once one has been created, it costs nothing (ok, maybe a comparatively small amount of the user's bandwidth, but thats negligible) to distribute it to anyone who wants it.
The products (movies, software, music, etc) need to (or will be, needs to is probably too strong) be developed, and someone has to pay for this, we can accept that as a given. The issue is how that is going to ever work when distributing the finished product to everyone on the planet with an internet connection costs nothing (or nearly nothing, again, internet connections aren't free, not yet anyway). Thus the problem I was getting at, digital goods are nonrival, giving them to one person doesn't keep them from anyone else, so trying to artificially restrict their distribution doesn't really make sense.
Movies in theaters, DVD's, and hard copies of anything that can be digitized are real products that have a significantly higher cost than zero to reproduce, that is why they are and will always be a seperate product from their digital forms.
I was comparing research to the digital goods industry because the products have very similar traits. They both cost little to nothing to reproduce, but a lot to develop. People don't generally "pirate" knowledge, because we don't generally try to artificially restrict it. (Medicines don't quite fit this, because they do cost a lot to produce in complex machinery and chemicals even though the knowledge isn't hard to find. People can't, or generally realize it is a bad idea to, create their medicine at home by looking up how to make it.)
My point, in short, is that the digital distribution method is inherently flawed. We need to be somehow paying collectively for the creation of anything that can be distributed at zero cost, rather than trying to pay for the distribution itself.