Barlow begins his discussion of the economy of ideas, particularly in the digital age, with a question that defines the heart of the issue "If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our possession, how can we protect it?" (1). In the transition from complete reliance on the printed word, with Gutenburg as a reference point, Barlow points out that we have progressed from viewing information as a hard to attain commodity to something taken for granted and exchanged so freely that it becomes difficult to control either the actual movement of information or the value that any work or idea carries. In an effort to control and protect the movement of ideas and their original authors, Barlow sees a level of control that threatens to hinder the actual productions and dissemination of information itself.
With the roots of copyright law in a time when the internet was far from fathomable, the initial intent of a law to protect an author's rights to their work was focused on something other than profit, an aspect of current copyright law that one would be hard pressed to exclude. Yet Barlow suggests that "It may well be that when the current system of intellectual property law has collapsed, as seems inevitable, that no new legal structure will arise in its place" (5). In arguing that our entire understanding of the meaning of information and the social and legal order that surrounds it must be shifted in light of new technology, Barlow (and his contemporaries) look to reexamine the foundation of intellectual property and their place in a digital society.
The inability of an author to control the "finished" product of their work leaves those who have a more economic stake in controlling their work (and the work of others) relatively resistant to accepting a less structured idea of ownership. In addressing this issue, Barlow points out the less tangible (but more valid) ways that the value of information can be measured. Rather than placing standard values on fixed information, Barlow argues that information's worth is based on its relationship with its audience, proximity to the information and the timeliness of it all factor in to more adaptable concepts of worth in this more modern economic system.
At the base of Barlow's ideas about the changing face of intellectual property and information is a shift towards a more ethics fueled establishment and away from one so severely rooted in law and enforcement. Citing consistent software sales despite increasingly available free versions of software, Barlow argues that people buy those things that become essential to their work and lives. When information, or a program, become important to someone's productivity they look for the aspects of that application that can only come through purchasing the support, updates, etc...
In breaking down the various changes that come with the digital age, Barlow asserts that even semantic concepts of information must change. In shifting our thinking from a noun to a verb, "information" becomes something that is harder to actually own, becoming rooted in need and relationship rather than possession and control.
2 comments:
Information has a verb root - to inform.
Just a few points and I’ll shut up. I find it amusing that Barlow makes all his points on verb/ideas and information as god that exists in time and not space – in a magazine, where he or it retains copyright, where it exists entirely in space – though time might be factored in, as in the amount of time it took me to read it. In terms of creativity and artistry, I remain as befuddled as before. No doubt 80% of what passes into, onto the internet is pure crap. Information and art are in no way equivalent. Information in many minds can be as harmful as helpful, and the brain itself is a much more active component in deciphering information than the mere mind (a product of the brain); hence, a large part of what we decipher, communicate occurs (in similar fashion to computers) beyond/beneath the conscious level. I would not contend that ideas are intellectual property (as commodities), but neither are they public domain in a sense that they freely float in time, to be plucked when needed or wanted.
Ironically, Barlow cites Richard Dawkins on cultural memes, then he contends that we need to rely on ethically-driven uses, as opposed to legal sanctions. How would Barlow then replace the “a nation of laws” meme with “a nation of fair users” one? And how would he shift us to a system that relies on either a Marxist view of labor as a commodity or the capitalist one of ideas equal capital (intellectual or economic) to this egalitarian one in which ideas are communal? After all, we are talking about the world wide web.
Another thing I noticed in Barlow's papers (both the 1994 and 2000 version) was the idea that people will ultimately pay for software or other soft things that are easily reproduced and distributed on-line when it is convenient to do so--also, when they might need tech support or the latest update for their software. I agree, to some point, as I have broken down and paid for items out of convenience that I might otherwise have come across for free. However, in the argument against litigation and other attempts to protect the copyright of ideas, without those forces in action, why would anyone break down and pay for a software simply because they want the latest update? If I'm using an illegal version of Windows, I cannot run updates (at least not once they realize the serial number I'm using is being widely distributed). That is the force of Windows working against me. If Windows allowed anyone to go on their site and run updates for free, why buy the software?
Maybe that's where the service part will come into play. Barlow predicts that is part of the future of on-line commerce. I would imagine all of our computers will one day be gateways to the Web and all software and data will be kept on remote servers where you pay for a subscription.
Post a Comment