Reading Response to John Perry Barlow’s “The Economy of Ideas”
John Perry Barlow’s article, “Selling Wine Without Bottles,” discusses copyright law and intellectual property in the Internet age. This article discusses the irony of the attempts to protect free speech, through copyright law, which actually run the risk of diminishing it. Barlow raises the questions of how can copyright law or the ideas behind it be perpetuated in this digital, Internet age when intellectual property is even less tangible and concrete.
I agree with a lot of the points made in the article, but I think that the author was a little dramatic. In the article Barlow references the notion that intellectual property and access to information used be decided by the “Divine right of thugs.” He goes on to assert that society is in danger of returning to this method of determining the ownership and value of information. Although there is merit in what Barlow is saying about the future of copyright, I don’t think that we will devolve to the point of sheer physical strength, I think the battle will be more legal and political as was alluded to earlier in the article.
This article raises a lot of interesting questions and ideas but it is also a bit ominous and hyperbolic at parts.Barlow raises the extreme idea,“…that when the current system of intellectual property law has collapsed, as seems inevitable, that no new legal structure will arise in its place.” I can follow the line of argument here, but I think that Barlow is getting way ahead of himself. I think that it’s highly unlikely that intellectual property law will eventually disappear entirely. Law is the backbone of American society, and although copyright law certainly needs to adapt in innovative ways, I can’t imagine we will reach the point where it is rendered completely ineffective and unnecessary.
The author compared the movement and flow of information to life forms in the scientific sense, in ways that I had never connected before. Barlow noted that, “Information is a life form.” Copyright laws as they stand don’t really allow for interactivity and derivations, which characterize the Internet.
Barlow makes the claim that the quality of information, “degrades rapidly both over time and distance from the source of production” (p.15). This statement holds some truth but it isn’t applicable in every situation, which is something that Barlow touches upon in the article. Certain information is curated and explained over time if it is perceived to have value. Yet I agree with the idea that once an idea is released into the marketplace, it can be misinterpreted and changed as it travels further away from the original source and contexts.
Although the author is a little wary of the cultural and societal implications of the ways that cyber technology has transformed information, he seems to revere these changes more than he fears them. I found it interesting that he thought that print kind of froze information in a way, and these new technologies are helping us to transcend this paralysis. There is the reiteration of the familiar concept that the medium is a part of the message. The mode that we transport information in either denies or allows it the ability to evolve, transform, and adapt. This concept itself isn’t foreign but in the context of this article I found it to be very nuanced.
“As we return to continuous information, we can expect the importance of authorship to diminish. Creative people may have to renew their acquaintance with humility,” (p. 14) The author is suggesting a complete shift in cultural norms and values. I can understand where he is coming from but I don’t think that society is going to experience this kind of overhaul at any point in the near future. I think that our reverence towards money is too entrenched and institutionalized to simply dissolve for the sake of an egalitarian society where information is freely available to anyone who cares to find it. Although the United States is democratic in name, we don’t have a fully functioning and direct democracy. Money controls everything and the very foundation of that power are going to have to be dismantled before any sort of massive public value shift can occur. Certain artists won’t have the capability to make money through their art if copyright law, or law in general, simply dissolves. I agree that the rules surrounding intellectual property are going to be forced to change, but I don’t see it happening in such a transformative manner as the author suggests.
“Receiving information is often as creative an act as generating it” (p.16). This excerpt raises an interesting point that I hadn’t really considered before. So often we examine the source of information and how that affects its production and quality but rarely do we look at the influence the receiver exerts on said information. In conversations about data and facts we try so hard to take all of the biases out of them so that they can be deemed reliable. Yet it is the very nature of information to hold some form of bias, or its value is only identified in relation to particular biases. Physically reading a book is a completely different experience than reading it online, and the way in which we access information affects the message we receive from said information.
“Reality is an edit. People are willing to pay for the authority of those editors whose filtering point of view seems to fit best.” (p. 18) This example really resonated with me because I’ve never looked at information through this frame. We choose which versions of reality we want to accept, and whose opinions are more valuable than others or even our own. It seems odd to pay for an idea simply because someone is deemed an expert.Yet at the same time it makes perfect sense, which speaks to the contradictory nature of the notion of “intellectual property.”
Barlow references the middle class and how they don’t purchase goods and information to survive, but rather as a source of amusement. This reference assumes that most of the world is middle class or that a substantial amount of it will be in the near future which is completely absurd. The world is in a fragile recovery from a massive economic crisis, and inequality is incredibly high. Yet the author operates under the assumption that we’ve completely transcended these old modes of living and communicating and that everyone will be able to participate in this informational and intellectual utopia. Not to say that his ideas and theories are completely wrong but I don’t necessarily think that he’s grounding them reality.
“…If we persist in modeling economics on a strictly monetary basis, we may be gravely misled,” (p.19). I think that his notion of a completely different economic system is incredibly optimistic. I don’t see the American people entirely shifting their economic mentality any time soon but it would be incredible if they did. People resist changes in economic systems so much that they are willing to stick with a particular set of beliefs regardless of evidence pointing towards alternatives with higher efficiency. Capitalism based on currency is so entrenched in the American Dream, and that philosophy is still pervasive in modern culture despite major social, political, and economic changes. Even the present day, an American political candidate’s career can be completely shot if opponents introduce the notion that their policies and beliefs are communist. Any mention of a derivation from American capitalism immediately sparks a strong reactionary opposition.
Barlow suggests a performance based model for the economy in order for the authors and originators of ideas to be able to generate income in this theoretical marketplace where information should flow freely. I agree that this model could work for very specific trades but I don’t really understand how it could translate into other sectors of the economy. If authors and artists are only making money from performances, what is going to stop them from rent controlling and price gauging?
“Information economics, in the absence of objects will be based more on relationships than possession.” ( p. 20) Although I wish his faith weren’t misplaced, I think he puts to much stock in ethics. We don’t live in a society ethical enough to carry out the sort of economy based on ideas that he seems to be idealizing.
Barlow plays with the concept that the philosophical marketplace of ideas will soon replace currency as a literal economic marketplace. “…In the years to come, most human exchange will be virtual rather than physical, consisting not of stuff…” (p. 23) This excerpt brings to mind the classic debate about whether the Internet will replace print based media once and for all. I always find that this image of the future is kind of depressing. Personally, I love books, newspapers, and physical writing and I don’t ever see it being rendered completely outdated. I think that the there should be balance and diversity rather than transcendence. I really don’t like absolutes, and I tend to find them dangerous and close-minded. I suppose that any portrait of a completely transformed future is off- putting and unrealistic to me.
