For the longest time I’ve worked off my own sense of a Copywrong; a valid (valid to me anyhow) argument which could contend with the reasoning behind the devising of a value for various information; a proof that all information should be valued the same — a belief that while information has no flaws, the platform mankind has implemented to exchange information (sociality) may. I just never really saw the belief for what it was…

I imagine this belief comes from my experience working with Information Technology as a profession, and is the a result of how I see information itself in a very abstract and/or specialized way, in order to do that job. Though, that is certainly not the exclusive experience for swaying one to think such a thing as “all information should be free!” In fact, there are many appeals to such a formless model.

In the past, I just would not accept the idea that all information — hell, that the very nature of information itself — could have a variable value and needed to have its value protected with a law-set like a Copyright as a result.

To me, notice of a death in the family, is no more or less valuable than plans to design a building. You see, both carry impact for the whole of a region. That is, if we are to remain under the precept that every individual is empowered to empower us all with his or her own information, or building designs!

You see, I always faulted myself on the point that, ideas come from people, and therefore have a good chance of being developed, re-developed if lost, advanced when needed, etc. While people… they were much more difficult to replicate in such an exact way. Therefore, rather innately, people held more value for me than the information they possessed.

I thought ultimately, information should be as free as it is to exchange in the given model. If not for the least of the many reasons then because Copyright itself is little more than syndicated information. And, should be just as faulty as the information it attempts to protect.

I assumed, going forward under this misconception, that despite man’s irresponsible nature on such large scales as “all of intellectual property” historically, and with information being such fundamental a unit of reality, information’s value was inherent of its nature. Now I realize, absolute is the word I was meaning all along — I assumed information was absolute, or at least that its value was. And, I was, of course, entirely wrong.

Nothing is so absolute — worse still, nothing is nearly absolute in the hands of human beings!

A more simple, honest way to put all this might be: all this while I wished for a way to diminish some of the destructive influence copyright can have. But, only because of the people who wield its mark, and the way they do so. While that may seem like an admirable position to hold, the Mistakes of the Day here, were all mine. All those assumptions forgave the one other rather important variable effect. The effect the people who syndicate and consume the information have on the entities involved — the problem is the people.

So, without further rambling (which is what this seems like now), the paragraph comparing concrete property rights to intellectual property rights which offered me a new direction, and inspired me to begin the inclusion of sociality more closely into my studies of copyright:

The purpose of property is to better manage the allocation of scarce resources. Since the resource is limited and not everyone can have it, property rights and property law make complete sense for a civilized society, allowing those with rights to the property to buy, sell and exchange their property. This allows for resources to be efficiently allocated through commerce and the laws of supply and demand. It’s a sensible system for the best allocation of scarce resources. However, when it comes to infinite resources, there’s simply no need to worry about efficient allocation — since anyone can have a copy. The purpose of copyright (and of patent law), then, wasn’t the same as the purpose of property law. It has nothing to do with more efficient allocation of scarce resources. Instead, it’s a government-granted incentive — a subsidy — to encourage the creation of new works. In other words, it was a case where the government believed there was a market failure. That is, they believed that without this incentive, certain intellectual works wouldn’t be created — and the tradeoff between locking up that idea and creating more content was one that was worthwhile. However, they always knew that it was a tradeoff — which is not at all true for real property.

Exposed here, is this idea that the government observed a failure in the market, and that this is the key cause for a copyright law — or, as I like to call it: My next stop in the study.