4 ms·

Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. Certainly, I

Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. Certainly, I agree that it isn't. Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. I have to disagree with that, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Take the example of the games I have for my XBox 360. I cannot duplicate them (or will not expend the effort required, which is ultimately the same), yet they have provided me with far more entertainment than any piece of garbage I've ever come across. ;-) You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). That's an interesting concept, but I create information. The application I'm writing right now would not ever exist without me. Others may be in the same market, doing similar things, but the fact is still that I am creating a unique, intangible object out of nothing. So, it's not merely passing through my head, but rather, it's originating in my head. By the way, I agree with the parenthetical end of that sentence. If I don't distribute my software, it's never of any use to anyone (other than me). But I don't think that says anything about the difference between controlled release in exchange for money versus free replication. I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion I appreciate that, and have enjoyed this discussion.

Natsu 15y ago
> In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. Here's the disconnect: many people find those rules utterly unnatural. I could dig out the famous quote about ideas not being amenable to notions of property, but I suspect you already know it. Incidentally, I tend to agree on the downvoting thing. I'd rather explain my position and engage than try to drive away people I disagree with.
hxa7241 15y ago
> Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. That seems to be an anachronistic view through the eyes of a modern myth of commerce. One would expect information was shared. Proto-humans who could not or would not share information -- hence crippling co-operation -- would have been out-competed by those that did, so de-selected by evolution. What is more central to being human than language, that is, communication of information? It did not evolve by guarding it and restricting it. > we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. That is really quite distant from fact or sense. IP was created as a means of censorship and/or monopoly. And the idea that IP is somehow 'natural' is completely upside-down. Intangible/abstract objects are quite natural on their own: they have their own natural qualities distinct from material objects -- it is being freely and infinitely communicable and copyable that makes them exactly what they naturally are.

Natsu 15y ago

> In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. Here's the disconnect: many people find those rules utterly unnatural. I could dig out the famous quote about ideas not being amenable to notions of property, but I suspect you already know it. Incidentally, I tend to agree on the downvoting thing. I'd rather explain my position and engage than try to drive away people I disagree with.

hxa7241 15y ago

> Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. That seems to be an anachronistic view through the eyes of a modern myth of commerce. One would expect information was shared. Proto-humans who could not or would not share information -- hence crippling co-operation -- would have been out-competed by those that did, so de-selected by evolution. What is more central to being human than language, that is, communication of information? It did not evolve by guarding it and restricting it. > we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. That is really quite distant from fact or sense. IP was created as a means of censorship and/or monopoly. And the idea that IP is somehow 'natural' is completely upside-down. Intangible/abstract objects are quite natural on their own: they have their own natural qualities distinct from material objects -- it is being freely and infinitely communicable and copyable that makes them exactly what they naturally are.