Does Information Want To Be Free?
Is information really free? Or does it come with a hidden charge? When I first heard the question I thought about the information that the internet provides for no charge. But is information really free? I do not think so. The fact is our current system entitles us to some free information, and it requires us to purchase or license other information. America Online is an example of the current system, it's a service that provides all types of free information, but you still have to pay in order to receive these services. Another example is Kazaa, an mp3 downloading provider, which allows users to download music at no charge, but all this information still has to be licensed. So is information really free? In my opinion, information is not free. Free information is just an illusion. For information to seem free, someone has to pay for it. Free information is part of business, which is not to imply that producing the information was free or that it has no value because businesses do not charge for it. Also, colleges and universities put out a lot of free information. So does the government. The funding for free information comes from tuition and income taxes. Some of the money is used to create free information.
If people want music to be free, they should create free music and distribute it. We all have the right and opportunity to create new ways of doing things. Linux demonstrates that such efforts can be highly successful. But we do not have a right to subvert existing systems in the name of free speech just because we have the technology to do so. The spread of mp3 files, and their centrality to Kazaa, mislead the debate over free and copyrighted content. Lots of people are willing to download free music files from strangers, because they find out if the sampling quality is lousy or the song breaks off halfway through, nothing has been lost. They can go back to Kazaa and try another site. The music from Kazaa would not be available unless you license this information. You may not like the fact that some information must be licensed, but that's how it is. Those who want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some information and make it free. What they shouldn't do is license or buy existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without permission. That's just plain wrong, and it demonstrates what they are interested in, it's not free speech at all but getting stuff without paying for it. more like geologists hoping to strike oil in uncertain terrain. (ABC News) Even such empty philosophical inanities as "nobody really owns anything" and "information wants to be free" breed confusion on the information superhighway. As Winn Schwartau puts it, "The 'information wants to be free' cliche makes a great sound bite, but it really means nothing. Information has no persona. And lots of information can - and does - belong to people." Just in economics and the laws of supply and demand. You can charge a lot for something scarce or otherwise hard to obtain, but you must charge less if that something is surplus or otherwise easy to obtain. The price of online information hasn't even actually hit zero, but it has fallen to a level where it can be easily transacted. Two years after the dot-com mania began to fade, web executi
Some common words found in the essay are:
America Online, Information Age, Winn Schwartau, Kazaa Kazaa, Internet Project, , information free, free information, Stewart Brand, willing pay, free speech, own copy, personally own copy, subsidizing free information, pay free information, information information, web sites, license information, music free, information pay, believe information free, free information pay,
Approximate Word count = 1409
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
