From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Jun 11 2002 - 22:51:22 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>Your argument assumes the value of making information property
>>but does not really make a case for it. I do not know for
>>certain if the concept of ownership is actually as critical for
>>a world of this kind of projected abundance. At least it would
>>seem that ownership in that which is more than abundant enough
>>is adding the proverbial legs to a snake.
>>
>
> But material abundance doesn't translate to informational abundance. We
> know that human knowledge is doubling. So what? It is still quite
> finite, and as such it is subject to economies of scarcity, ergo it must
> be treated as property to be managed and utilized most effectively.
>
Not quite. Finiteness does not determine whether private
ownership is better than more of a commons type arrangement for
intellectual property or information. Many types of IP,
software for one, actually seem to increase in value and
increase the speed of further innovation and improvement the
more openly they are shared. To say it is only available in
finite quantity in the case of software is somewhat incorrect.
The software can be infinitely copied, distributed, modified and
blended with other software. There is no scarcity in such types
of information and IP except artificial ones and scarcity in
brains sufficient to create new and better information from it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:45 MST