Imagine a world famous chef known for his creative flare and ability to create new and exciting dishes. Now, in our current world, this chef would most likely make a living being the head chef of a classy restaurant, marketing their name to cookbooks and other food products, and perhaps having a show on the Food Network. But suppose they were able to patent or copyright their recipes. All of a sudden, they can make a living off of the payments received from just one hit dish.

It's an absurd scenario, of course, but sometimes I can't help but feel that the status quo isn't equally absurd in some ways. Creative individuals like the chef are paid to be creative and their creativity gives their name a brand that can be marketed in association with other products. There are other creative arts, however, where the emphasis is not on continual creativity, but a more limited way of living that seems to focus on few creative acts made more profitable through monopoly protections provided under the law.

In other words, the painter who, instead of being paid to paint new works or perhaps associate their name with painting products, is able to make a living off of payments received for allowing reproductions. I will admit that I don't know exactly how this came about as the status quo. Historically, artists didn't depend on the law to provide for them by enforcing any form of "intellectual property rights." Rather, they depended on rich patrons who wanted creativity performed for them. And today, where more and more individuals are taking up hobbies, creativity can itself be a boon in selling products.

Could this type of system work for today's artists and musicians? It already does, to some extent. While the larger music industry focuses on record sales and banning P2P music trading, my own sphere of music (jam bands like Phish, Keller Williams, and Umphrey's McGee) focuses not on record sales, but on concert sales. And because each concert is its own display of creativity energy, fans have more of an incentive to go to multiple concerts. Recently, instead of going after music trading, these bands have decided that they can profit by offering high quality recordings of their live concerts . . . for a price.

I think that for this system to work, our society has to accept, even more than it already does, the idea that public benefits can come from private vices. Conspicuous consumption is not necessarily a bad thing when it fuels demands for services in the economy. The Fables of the Bees by Bernard Mandeville is a poem that explains the connection between the economy and a willingness to indulge in what may be see as lesser pursuits. It's a reminder that what may be seen as vices by moralizers of both the left and right wings, be it drinking, pornography, internet gambling, fast food consumption, or jam band concerts, are vital elements to not just our economy, but to our enjoyment of life.

So should we pull back the legal structure that currently grants a monopoly right to the producers of some forms of creative arts but not others? Some artists would howl that it would undermine their livelihood, much as factory workers oppose the repeal of protectionist tariffs. But doing away with monopolies ought to contribute to economic growth and the expansion of job opportunities elsewhere.

Thoughts?