Who Owns the Future?

In light of the various recent debates on the future of Fremium versus Premium, you might wish to read and digest this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/27/who-owns-future-lanier-review

The groundbreaking computer scientist suggests that in a world that paid for the information we generate, everyone might achieve economic dignity

"In Who Owns the Future? he tellingly questions the trajectory of economic value in the information age, and argues that there has been a fundamental misstep in how capitalism has gone digital. For Lanier, late capitalism is not so much exhausted as humiliating: in an automated world, information is more important to the economy than manual labour, and yet we are expected to surrender information generated by or about ourselves – a valuable resource – for free.

"Information here is a broad term for any conscious intellectual, artistic, or pragmatic contribution to the production of goods, services and cultural output, but it also includes the data that we unconsciously radiate simply by exhibiting certain behavioural and consumer traits. Lanier's project is to foresee how livelihoods might be better sustained in a world in which information is king."

For the sake of clarity this comment by Nungy (Don't ask why Nungy because I have no idea either:) is mine.

Read the full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/27/who-owns-future-lanier-review

Difficult to follow without reading the book, but it appears to be an argument for technological communism, a redistribution of wealth. Not convinced it would work any better in practice than any other version.

Unique or copyright information should always be paid for, eg an online book or a professional paper. Information brokering or direct services should also be charged, just as many other commodity brokers have done in the past. Caveat emptor.

Sharing knowledge, tips and experience shouldn't. Thinking social network or blog type information now, even industry specific. The information is not always verifiable, relevant, up to date or valid, there may even be more than one source. Sometimes the information is just plain wrong.

In the example of the piece given, the royalty payment made to the 30 year married pair by the young couple, would that be refundable should the youngsters divorce after 2 years? Would that data be considered to be valid and sold again, verified by whom, or what?

A world of nano payments seems a nightmare to me, obviously based on today's understanding rather than any future, but imagine it being the beginning of the end for t'interweb, certainly as we know it.

Replies

Ian Olpin February 27, 2013 at 1:04pm

Difficult to follow without reading the book, but it appears to be an argument for technological communism, a redistribution of wealth. Not convinced it would work any better in practice than any other version.

Unique or copyright information should always be paid for, eg an online book or a professional paper. Information brokering or direct services should also be charged, just as many other commodity brokers have done in the past. Caveat emptor.

Sharing knowledge, tips and experience shouldn't. Thinking social network or blog type information now, even industry specific. The information is not always verifiable, relevant, up to date or valid, there may even be more than one source. Sometimes the information is just plain wrong.

In the example of the piece given, the royalty payment made to the 30 year married pair by the young couple, would that be refundable should the youngsters divorce after 2 years? Would that data be considered to be valid and sold again, verified by whom, or what?

A world of nano payments seems a nightmare to me, obviously based on today's understanding rather than any future, but imagine it being the beginning of the end for t'interweb, certainly as we know it.