If I understand the argument correctly, the assertion that "information wants to be free" says that the distribution cost of information on the Internet (that complex system of tubes) tends toward zero per unit of info. As Michael Perelman points out, this process encourages various sellers to try to monopolize information (intellectual property laws and all sorts of security measures). But let's ignore that.
If the (marginal) cost of distribution of info is zero, and there are no artificial limits on supply, then there's no way anyone can make a profit by selling it. They can charge you for your use of the fiber-optic cable (or whatever) and the routers, etc., that you use to access the Tubes (the fixed costs), but they can't charge you for any specific piece of information (the marginal cost). The problem is that the _production_ of information (journalism, etc.) is not free; it has a positive marginal cost. If there's a cost of production and no cost of distribution, profit-seeking capitalists will not produce or distribute information. Nor will not-for-profit institutions, since they have to cover costs (unless they get big donations). Info in this story is a _public good_: paraphrasing the immortal words of the Wikipedia, "consumption of the info by one individual does not reduce availability of the info for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the info." As collateral damage, free info on the webs means that alternative sources of info besides the Internets (i.e., newspapers, LBO, etc.) are driven out of business. This says that the only way we can organize the production and distribution of info is via the government (though not necessarily in a centralized way). Crucially, the only way to finance the mess is via taxes. Of course, we could drop the simplifying assumption: the other way to finance the mess is via monopolies that charge people more for info than the production and distribution costs. The question is not do we want a state-controlled web or a monopoly-controlled one, since those two can work hand in glove and are likely to continue to do so. The question is whether or not the web is ultimately subject to democratic control by the taxpayers. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
