4 ms·

Unlike donuts, information wants to be free. I'm not saying that trying to be funny. It is in the nature of information to be free. One can try to shackle infor

by tjogin 17y ago

Unlike donuts, information wants to be free. I'm not saying that trying to be funny. It is in the nature of information to be free. One can try to shackle information, but one will have problems doing so, this is to be expected. When explaining one's rationale for locking down information, people often use metaphors of physical objects. This is doomed to fail. Try to use non-physical objects that are similar in nature to information as metaphors instead. The problem with that is of course that it is also impossible, as the very nature information shares with intangible goods is that they also want to be free.

mattmanser 17y ago
Ah, you are selling bullshit my friend. If your employer turned round to you after a month of work and said, 'but tjogin, all you've done is create information and information wants to be free, why should I pay you?', methinks your view on the entire matter would rapidly change. Someone worked hard to produce that article and if they want to charge for it it's their right to.
- tjogin 17y ago
  I never even mentioned economics, thus your comment does not in any way disprove anything I said. In your example, the employer buys time, not information. Time is significantly harder to reproduce or copy than information is. So, one way to charge for information is to sell time sensitive information (like stock information), but then what you're really selling is time exclusivity. Selling information without any kind of unique or time sensitive properties is doomed to fail — the only thing that made it once possible was technical limitations; information needed for instance paper as a vehicle to distribute it. Those technical limitations are gone now.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  He should pay tjogin because of the contract he and tjogin have, or, absent such a contract, because he wants more content from tjogin or people tjogin could communicate with.

by tjogin 17y ago

mattmanser 17y ago

Ah, you are selling bullshit my friend. If your employer turned round to you after a month of work and said, 'but tjogin, all you've done is create information and information wants to be free, why should I pay you?', methinks your view on the entire matter would rapidly change. Someone worked hard to produce that article and if they want to charge for it it's their right to.

tjogin 17y ago
I never even mentioned economics, thus your comment does not in any way disprove anything I said. In your example, the employer buys time, not information. Time is significantly harder to reproduce or copy than information is. So, one way to charge for information is to sell time sensitive information (like stock information), but then what you're really selling is time exclusivity. Selling information without any kind of unique or time sensitive properties is doomed to fail — the only thing that made it once possible was technical limitations; information needed for instance paper as a vehicle to distribute it. Those technical limitations are gone now.
randallsquared 17y ago
He should pay tjogin because of the contract he and tjogin have, or, absent such a contract, because he wants more content from tjogin or people tjogin could communicate with.