4 ms·

I cannot because the author is simply wrong. "information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly." Information is essential for the market

I cannot because the author is simply wrong. "information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly." Information is essential for the market's ability to set prices. "markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant" That's only part of the story. They are also based on value. Information may be abundant but valuable information is scarce and the creators of valuable information are scarcer still. "The system’s defence mechanism is to form monopolies" Here the author contradicts himself. Just like you cannot form an 'air monopoly' since it is so abundant. If the author is arguing that information cannot be intrinsically valuable because it is so abundant, you cannot create a monopoly on top of it. "By building business models and share valuations based on the capture and privatisation of all socially produced information" That is not what these companies are doing. They are creating platforms that enable the creation of valuable information or finding valuable information out of a sea of worthless information. "most basic need of humanity, which is to use ideas freely." Information and data are not ideas. And, while it is useful to use valuable ideas, it is also useful to create them which means it is useful to incentivize the creation of valuable ideas which is difficult when they are used freely. In short, the author is wrong at almost every turn.

aninhumer 10y ago
> If the author is arguing that information cannot be intrinsically valuable because it is so abundant, you cannot create a monopoly on top of it. Sure you can, that's exactly what copyright does. You create artificial scarcity by forbidding people to make use of an otherwise abundant resource. >it is useful to incentivize the creation of valuable ideas which is difficult when they are used freely. I don't think it's that difficult, it's just hardly anyone is seriously considering alternatives to the copyright model, not least because its proponents have elevated it to morality status. We are starting to see a possible alternative in the form of Kickstarter and Patreon. Some creators using these services happily give away some or all of their creative output, and primarily sell their continuing labour. And I think many of those who currently restrict their content will begin to care a lot less about piracy, once they're not relying on piecemeal sales for their income. I don't know if that model can scale to all content creation, but I think people have underestimated it in the past.
majewsky 10y ago
> valuable information is scarce His point is that valuable information is only scarce because of monopolies on that information. If it were allowed to move freely, it would not be scarce anymore because of zero-cost lossless reproduction. > Just like you cannot form an 'air monopoly' since it is so abundant. Information monopolies only work because they were established before information became abundant. And even then, only with government intervention. See, for example, the history of book printing prior and up to the invention of copyright. > They are creating platforms that enable the creation of valuable information or finding valuable information out of a sea of worthless information. That doesn't mean their business model can't (or won't) be disrupted. 30 (or even 20) years ago, no one could've imagined a free encyclopedia written by enthusiasts. > it is useful to incentivize the creation of valuable ideas which is difficult when they are used freely. There are a lot of people who create valuable ideas which are then used freely. They're called scientists.
- clavalle 10y ago
  Most impactful scientists are paid. Either they work for a university, hold patents, sell books, speak, consult, or work for private industry. If we expect them to create to the level we currently enjoy, we would be wise not to cut their legs out from under them. In fact, it may be a good idea to figure out how to reward scientists more efficiently so the good ones aren't globe trotting to their consulting or speaking gigs, spending inordinate amount of time writing popular science books, or getting sucked into the trade secret black hole of private industry.

aninhumer 10y ago

> If the author is arguing that information cannot be intrinsically valuable because it is so abundant, you cannot create a monopoly on top of it. Sure you can, that's exactly what copyright does. You create artificial scarcity by forbidding people to make use of an otherwise abundant resource. >it is useful to incentivize the creation of valuable ideas which is difficult when they are used freely. I don't think it's that difficult, it's just hardly anyone is seriously considering alternatives to the copyright model, not least because its proponents have elevated it to morality status. We are starting to see a possible alternative in the form of Kickstarter and Patreon. Some creators using these services happily give away some or all of their creative output, and primarily sell their continuing labour. And I think many of those who currently restrict their content will begin to care a lot less about piracy, once they're not relying on piecemeal sales for their income. I don't know if that model can scale to all content creation, but I think people have underestimated it in the past.

majewsky 10y ago

> valuable information is scarce His point is that valuable information is only scarce because of monopolies on that information. If it were allowed to move freely, it would not be scarce anymore because of zero-cost lossless reproduction. > Just like you cannot form an 'air monopoly' since it is so abundant. Information monopolies only work because they were established before information became abundant. And even then, only with government intervention. See, for example, the history of book printing prior and up to the invention of copyright. > They are creating platforms that enable the creation of valuable information or finding valuable information out of a sea of worthless information. That doesn't mean their business model can't (or won't) be disrupted. 30 (or even 20) years ago, no one could've imagined a free encyclopedia written by enthusiasts. > it is useful to incentivize the creation of valuable ideas which is difficult when they are used freely. There are a lot of people who create valuable ideas which are then used freely. They're called scientists.

clavalle 10y ago
Most impactful scientists are paid. Either they work for a university, hold patents, sell books, speak, consult, or work for private industry. If we expect them to create to the level we currently enjoy, we would be wise not to cut their legs out from under them. In fact, it may be a good idea to figure out how to reward scientists more efficiently so the good ones aren't globe trotting to their consulting or speaking gigs, spending inordinate amount of time writing popular science books, or getting sucked into the trade secret black hole of private industry.