An introduction to Free Culture

[aneeshm]

A little article I've written, to serve as an introduction to the concept of Free Culture, aimed towards a college student in any discipline (but mainly the technical ones), assuming no prior exposure to the economics concepts presented.

Link

Any criticism would be appreciated. Preferably constructive.

 

[ArneHD]

I found it very interesting, but I am going to withhold my opinion concerning the economics you present until JerichoHill comes along and comments.

The only thing I CAN comment on is that the Prisoners Dilemma is an interesting thought experiment, but difficult to copy directly to the real world.

All in all though an interesting article.

 

[EdwardTking]

A little article I've written, to serve as an introduction to the concept of Free Culture, aimed towards a college student in any discipline (but mainly the technical ones), assuming no prior exposure to the economics concepts presented.

Link

Any criticism would be appreciated. Preferably constructive.

I like the term "digital feudalism".

 

[aneeshm]

Oh God, NO!

Not another buzzword!

What have I DONE!!!!!!

 

[ArneHD]

Oh God, NO!

Not another buzzword!

What have I DONE!!!!!!

One step closer to the Dilbertian future.

 

[aneeshm]

Nobody is interested?

 

[crabapple]

very intresting read

 

[Atlas14]

Considering its a blog, I doubt you're too interested in grammatical stuff, but anyways:

Suppose that today, you had a machine which could make infinitely many copies of anything you put into it – be it food, clothing, machines, anything, at virtually no cost.

the bolded part is an awkward wording, and should be something like: "an infinite number of copies"

I'll edit my post and add more constructive comments when I finish reading; looks good at first glance

 

[QuoVadisNation]

One of the biggest objections to one of your premises in your article, aneeshm, is that it doesn't provide very convincing reasons to believe that the resources from the internet are "infinite". Yes, the internet is vast; but the premise only holds up as long as the internet resources aren't in actually a part of 'effective" resource competition throughout real life; adversely taking internet resources for free might adversely affect the flow of, incentive of, and of the "effective management" of real product now. So, I don't see how such internet material can yet be considered separate from the classical economic theory, or is analogous to the magical machine mentioned in the first paragraph, as you seem to suggest. If it is, indeed, a part of limited resource managing, then your whole article about this new brand of freedom could very well be in jeopardy.

Maybe there are reasons for it; but I didn't catch it in your article.

It was a good read, however, but I'm a little adverse to believing anything with Richard Stallman; he doesn't seem to me like one of the distinguished professors in our life-time.. and his wikipedia article makes him seem like a self-interested crackpot. The read also could have used better transitions.

 

[aneeshm]

One of the biggest objections to one of your premises in your article, aneeshm, is that it doesn't provide very convincing reasons to believe that the resources from the internet are "infinite". Yes, the internet is vast; but the premise only holds up as long as the internet resources aren't in actually a part of 'effective" resource competition throughout real life; adversely taking internet resources for free might adversely affect the flow of, incentive of, and of the "effective management" of real product now. So, I don't see how such internet material can yet be considered separate from the classical economic theory, or is analogous to the magical machine mentioned in the first paragraph, as you seem to suggest. If it is, indeed, a part of limited resource managing, then your whole article about this new brand of freedom could very well be in jeopardy.

Maybe there are reasons for it; but I didn't catch it in your article.

It was a good read, however, but I'm a little adverse to believing anything with Richard Stallman; he doesn't seem to me like one of the distinguished professors in our life-time.. and his wikipedia article makes him seem like a self-interested crackpot. The read also could have used better transitions.

Classical economic theory still holds good with anything which is scarce on the internet - I'm just saying that information (and thus culture) isn't.

Assuming that all of us have connections capable of streaming video, with no data cap, for a fixed price per unit time, then that factor is removed from the equation. Most of us do not, of course, have such connections, but the time is soon approaching when anybody with the capital necessary to contribute to culture, free or otherwise, will have such a connection. And such a connection is more than sufficient for the purposes of the essay.

As for Stallman - though people often like to think that he is some sort of unreal idealist, in practice, he is very realistic. His movement wouldn't have succeeded the way it did if he hadn't been. His objections to software patents are all practical in nature, for instance.

And I'm not referring to everything on the Internet being Free - it's only stuff which has been explicitly put in the Free domain which is Free (the rice which you have grown from scratch on your own).

 

[aneeshm]

Oh, and I've not tried to appeal to people's moral or ethical sense, because I assume that most people don't have one.

 

[innonimatu]

I like the way you attack the "Tragedy of the Commons" argument. I would attack it at its root (game theory itself), but your way is probably more effective at this time.

And about this clash between the advocates of "intellectual property" and those of free culture, over the future of the Internet, I'd like to make a comparison: this will play out like the attempts to ban pornography.

Laws may even be passed against it, but people like it, and once it is available will not allow it to disappear. Policeman, judges and politicians, they all liked it and used it, even while they pretended to fight it.
The same situation is happening with "piracy" over the internet. The internet is maintained by people who simply cannot resist using it to its fullest extent. They will keep copying whatever they will, even while their bosses order them to tighten control over the users of their networks. These are the people who have build (academics who value nothing over the freedom to research) and maintain (all those network managers, computer technicians and software developers who see software and information for what it is, tools and building blocks to be used) the Internet. Lawyers are be powerless to change them, and without winning them over the "intellectual property" guys cannot do anything effective. They may frighten the end users, but they will never stamp out piracy - unless they want to throw into jail all the people who keep the Internet working. The germans apparently were foolish enough to give it a try with their most recent legislation, we'll see what happens...