[10608] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Debating the NII "Truisms"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Gingery)
Mon Feb 28 00:44:26 1994
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 12:24:45 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Gingery <lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu>
To: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Cc: The future Ross Stapleton-Gray <STAPLETON@bpa.arizona.edu>,
In-Reply-To: <m0pVtWi-000I7vC@crynwr>
On Sun, 13 Feb 1994, Russell Nelson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 1994 13:02:54 -0700 (MST), "The future Ross
Stapleton-Gray" ...
> > "If intellectual property rights aren't preserved, no one is going
> > to put any information on the 'information superhighway.'"
> >
> > "If information is made free, you'll end up getting what you pay for."
> > (sort of a corollary to the first)
>
> Certainly a nice sound bit, but like many of its ilk, it is an
> oversimplification. For one, it confounds the two meanings of
> "free": no-cost and freedom.
>
> Let me rephrase this and see if people agree with it:
>
> "The value of something is always proportional to the amount
> you pay for it."
>
> Now, we've all seen examples that disprove this: Buy something at one
> store and find it at another store for less; the excellent find at
> the garage sale; the $50 broken toy bought and repaired for $0.50.
>
> Perhaps the better way to state the sound bite is "It's better to pay
> more for something if you don't have a good idea what it's worth."
> That is to say, sometimes you can substitute money for information.
Sounds like a quote from a stereotypical used car salesman. Of course
this is the better car -- look at its price!
The value of something, even in a free market, is a SUBJECTIVE quality.
What you paid for it (monitarily) is objective. What it COST you is
subjective, even if there is little goal related value received. In some
cases what something COSTS a person (either receiving it or because of not
receiving it) is greater than their own assets.
That's perhaps a large part of the dilemma with regards to the
prospects of an "Information Elite". It can cost those NOT part of the
elite far more than the value received by the Elite, as the information
content may actually have a value to the "have-not" which is greater than
that of the "have".
So long as "life involves money" -- a condition for which there is no
end in clear sight -- the writer deserves to be paid for his efforts just as
any other "laborer". The juggling act is balancing the interests of the
author against the interests of the "consumers" of the writings. (or art,
or compilatons or software...)
Bruce Gingery lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu
