Peter Wayner On The Spread Of Information

Peter Wayner contributed the piece below, and it's a good reminder that the conventional wisdom, even as voiced by smart and respected people or institutions, may be out of step with the reality of life. Complexity seems to demand individual autonomy, doesn't it?

The demonization of people who think for themselves continues. Here's a quote from Amy Harmon's piece from Sunday's New York Times examining what software like Napster means for the world. The article itself covers a wide variety of view points and suggests that there's little the law can do if the people don't believe that something is wrong. But it contains a certain amount of worrying and handwringing, courtesy of Esther Dyson:

"We're very much looking at a biological model of an epidemic," said Esther Dyson, publisher of the technology newsletter Release 1.0. "On the Internet, a product doesn't require a central host and it doesn't require central distribution, it just spreads. It's new in business. It's been going on a long time in viruses."

It may not be fair to judge the quote outside of the larger context of Dyson's thoughts, but it still possible to focus on the dangerous assumption that this age is much different from the ones that came before. Products without central hosts and distribution are not new in business. They're old in business. The centralized, one-corporation economy is what's new. In the past, there was competition. Everything was not run by central planners of big corporations.

Consider the food business. It used to be quite local. Small companies and local producers competed with each other. Farmers sold to whomever stopped by their stands. Stores bought from multiple farmers. Now the business section of the same Sunday edition reports that Coca-Cola is gradually squeezing out all competitors from stores in the South. Coke used to fight for the best placement, now they want everyone else off the shelf completely. Should we be surprised that Ben & Jerrys is now just another brand in a big company's portfolio?

Of course, there were plenty of other products that didn't require central distribution or a central host. Almost all of the devices produced in the past lived without reporting home every few seconds because it simply wasn't feasible. Guns produced in the East empowered virus-like settlers, homesteaders, 49ers, and everyone else to swarm over what became the western states. Cars spread just as effectively. People drove them where ever they pleased and fixed them when they broke down.

Books were printed, sold, shared, and loaned without strict copyright laws. In fact, unauthorized reprinting was common. Plus, once they left the store, the newer owner was free to use the book as he chose. The law specifically granted only to the copyright holder the right to extract money from the book, in the form of its first sale.

Even software spread quickly -- and in a virus-like manner -- before the Internet came along. Plenty of software was free before the 1980s, and shareware continued the trend after that. People swapped disks and gave to their friends. It was coming of the Internet that gave rise to the centralized archives of shareware and freeware.

Dyson's words were used to imply that people who think for themselves and do not check with some central host for permission are acting like viruses. It's pretty sad to hear that the free flow of people, capital, and information is something that's scary and bad.

Comments

Exactly

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

And this is what is meant by "information wants to be free". It doesn't mean "information has a brain and certain desires". It doesn't mean "should be released to everyone at no cost". It means "information, like heat, tends towards a state of maximum diffusion".

Unlike heat, however, information is easy to make copies of. Imagine a cold room with a hot corner. Eventually the whole room is just warm. The heat covers the whole volume, but at the cost of becoming less detectable. Now imagine a information-less network with a information-source attached. Since information spread is by making copies, not by diffusion, eventually the entire network is as "hot" as the original source. There is no diffusion. In other words, a net gain for every node, instead of nodes gaining at the expense of the source.

Another parallel: You get work done when you make heat do something while it diffuses. For instance, you heat up a pot of water (spreading heat throughout the container) which creates steam. The steam escapes the spout (spreading the heat throughout the room). If you put a pinwheel by the spout you harness some of that heat escape as physical force. Same with info: Put an "information engine" at the bottleneck between the information source and the rest of the network and you turn information into money. But, just like you can't get the heat from the escaped steam back to re-heat the pot, you can't get a network node that already bought the information to pay for it again later. Copyright laws are an attempt to legislate mathematics/physics and Napster is proof once again that that doesn't work.
--

Is Esther Dyson the Faith Popcorn of the tech set?

[georgeha]

Seriously, how did she get to be a wealthy spokesperson/trendsetter for the tech set?

I've read some of her stuff, it's bland, vague prognisticating. And people shell out triple digits to subscribe to this, and pay lots of money to go to her seminars.

I guess she got in the right place at the right time, but she sure doesn't impress me.

Now Freeman of course, was another story.

George

Re:Piracy *IS* a negative net-sum game

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Without the creation of new music by artists and then published and promoted by the record companies, pirates would have nothing to ever pirate.

Let's get it straight: copyright infringement is not piracy. No one wears eye patchs and cries "Aargh!" as they download the latest Britney Spears... This is more than a semantic argument. The fallacy of the label "pirate" blinds people to certain truths.

People using Napster are replicators. They take an object and reproduce it, in no way reducing the availability of that object to its "owner". They do undermine the unnatural economic value of the song (or whatever), but, that value derives from an artificial monopoly and has no a priori justification. So you really have to argue that Napster, etc., lead to an actual diminution of creative output and value. The jury is out on this -- some studies find a correlation with declining sales, some a correlation with increasing sales.

Key point: If you -- like most big corporations -- claim to believe in "free enterprise", then you must admit that according to all that is holy in Adam Smith, digital recordings have no intrinsic economic worth. Since the supply is effectively infinite, the price drops necessarily to zero. As such, the entire intellectual "property" scheme is an artificial restriction on the market. Now, I personally have no problem with such a thing -- but it must serve the public good, if it's going to back up with governmental force.

I am always amazed at the number of laissez-faire, free-market libertarian yahoos who somehow claim that IP is nonetheless valid.