Contract laws and laws forbidding theft (and establishing the private ownership of physical objects) are literally cornerstones of almost all human societies that ever existed. Protecting retail is incidental.
Consider this thought experiment: we invented Star Trek replicators and made them as expensive as computers or microwave ovens. Retail business would, and IMO rightfully should, literally stop existing that very moment. Trying to restrict replicating everyday object would be wrong, and would go against the very nature of replicator-enabled reality.
This is to show that laws should align with the reality they exist in, instead of making lives of the many worse to make lives of the few a bit easier.
>Consider this thought experiment: we invented Star Trek replicators and made them as expensive as computers or microwave ovens. Retail business would, and IMO rightfully should, literally stop existing that very moment. Trying to restrict replicating everyday object would be wrong, and would go against the very nature of replicator-enabled reality.
I don't see why it would be inherently "wrong". Wrong is for humans to decide.
Consider this alternate though experiment: we invented a device giving people the ability to murder anyone in the world without anybody having proof of who did it. Would it be wrong trying to restrict that machine's sales and use, and would it go against the very nature of killing-without-evidence-machine-enabled reality?
In your example, it wouldn't be wrong, because this machine enables severe violation of one of the fundamental things people agree on - the wish of individuals to live, and live without fear of getting killed. On one level up, for humans as social animals, there are pretty universal concepts of fairness, that seem to include personal property rights (communism tried to do away with that, and it created a disaster) and the desire for reward for one's work. Societies tend to enshrine those desires in laws. We also have desires for sharing and social expectations that it's good for people with surplus to share with people who have less than they need. Moreover, the concept of helping those in need is also pretty fundamental as humans go.
I bring it up because your example with murder-machine deals with a different set of concepts than the replication machine.
The replicator example was meant to show that retail business model doesn't make sense when there's zero marginal cost of producing and distributing a good past the very first item - retail stops bringing any value to customers. Trying to artificially limit replicators to save retail would be wrong, both by going against the fundamental concepts of society and by making something trivial and good much more difficult to perform.
By the same line of thinking, it's worth considering whether DRM and IP laws aren't protecting some business models that don't make sense anymore, and by this causing damage to society.
Because it prevents people from creating wealth for themselves in order to make sure that other people can profit from selling to them, thus creating a privilege that hurts the common good. Aka "protection of a business model".
Consider this thought experiment: we invented Star Trek replicators and made them as expensive as computers or microwave ovens. Retail business would, and IMO rightfully should, literally stop existing that very moment. Trying to restrict replicating everyday object would be wrong, and would go against the very nature of replicator-enabled reality.
This is to show that laws should align with the reality they exist in, instead of making lives of the many worse to make lives of the few a bit easier.