From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 04:24:47 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
> Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
> > Not necessarily, but rather that the usefulness/value/power of
information
> > is more important to me than its "freeness."
>
> If it is not free (speech not beer), not open, then there are limits on
> your ability to fully utilize it. If you are interested in it being
> more powerful then you are interested in it being more open/free.
Absolute disagreement, for precisely the reasons I have already cited. Your
direct equation of "power" with "freeness" is simplisitic. Does money
become more powerful if it's free? Or it is made useful by the
control/limits we place on it?
> > Laws of scarcity. Maybe you think it would be nice if every kid on the
> > planet could have a mint copy of Action Comics #1, but you can't argue
that
> > such a distribution wouldn't destroy an interesting market.
> >
>
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
Only if you haven't been paying attention, or are unaware of the
transformation of creative energy into replicable data prevalent in today's
media environment. If 'collectibility' is an asset worth protecting in the
material world, why isn't it in the electronic one?
A first edition is a material artifact.
> It is not information but a given physical embodiment in a particular
> form produced at a particular time. It cannot be duplicated by
> definition. But every kid can have a copy of the contents of that first
> edition.
Yes Samantha, and think very carefully about what that "definition" is.
Here, allow me: we have arbitrarily placed value upon a particular edition
of a magazine. Although the technology exists to create a nearly exact (for
all practical intents and purposes) duplicate, we have passed laws against
any attempt to pass such a forgery off as a first edition. Essentially we
have decided to outlaw the replication of a particular print run of material
goods, despite the fact that we could easily put an accurate forgery in the
hand of every elementary school kid on the planet. We do that to
(arbitrarily) protect a market-- and as a result, there is one.
> Yes there is a place for secrets - in war or the equivalent, one's
> personal information and affairs.
That's not the position of the post to which I replied: Zero Powers wrote:
"I personally think those who demand the perpetuation of personal "privacy"
in a future that will live and breath on the unrestricted communication and
processing of ever increasing amounts of information are unknowing Luddites.
As I see it our ultimate "purpose," if there is one, is to facillitate the
efficient storage, transmission and processing of data. Everything at its
core is information and the more of it we can grasp and utilize, the better
off we will be."
But in peace and in non-personal
> information, the maximal power and good of each of us is highly
> dependent on the free flow of information.
Again, total disagreement. It's not just about free flow of information,
(isn't that obvious?) it's about access to the right information. Further,
you specifically use the term 'each of us' referring to individuals: can't
you think of a few (thousand) ways in which the maximal power and good of an
individual is highly dependent on the controlled flow of information?
> Your password is also not relevant. This is a key designed to protect a
> personal asset. It is no more information in the sense under discussion
> than your housekey is.
Frankly, my housekey is also information Samantha. And if you think
password information is not relevant to this discussion, then you better use
a different word than "information."
> > > > Someone who prefers personal empowerment to the empowerment of the
> > > > collective.
>
> In the world of information this boundary between you and them, or more
> precisely, this chopping up of the information commons into "yours" and
> "theirs" often harms each and every one of us.
Who said it was an 'information commons?' Your choice of words begs your
conclusion.
Further, if you do not also hold that the 'chopping up of *goods and
services* into "yours" and "theirs" often harms each and every one of us,'
(a la Communism) then you'll need to effectively distinquish why we
shouldn't protect the information market (by showing how the differences are
significant.) (Pretend like microchips built in 5 billion dollar factories
can be indefinitely replicated and transmitted-- that's a good jumping off
point. Should we let people copy them, or should we secure them to the
benefit of the creators?)
Damn, well this brings us around to a conversation that I -really- don't
want to have again-- you'll find reams of material on the subject in the
archives just prior to your joining the list if I recall correctly.
> There is a vast difference between secure ownership of money or goods,
> or even ownership of personal information crucial to privacy and
> claiming ownership of algorithms, data and so on. Creative works are in
> a slightly different category in my opinion although some of the changes
> brought about by the information age also change quite a bit about
> music, literary works and so on and the rights and obligations of all
> involved.
Your so-called "vast difference," is shrinking rapidly. Good nanotech means
that it's ALL going to be software before long. Everything is information--
its just that some of it is currently represented in a form over which we do
not yet have fine grained access.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:12 MST