Reflection on The Economy of Ideas : Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Global Net
Laws geared towards intellectual property protection were created to ensure secure ownership of intangible property. Intangible property would be considered creative work, and creative work is a huge part of society, culture, and identity. The idea of thoughts being sold as property has always been a topic that I find very curious. John Perry Barlow wrote a piece called “The Economy of Ideas Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Global Net,” and he opens with a long quote from Thomas Jefferson. A segment from this quote that really shaped my reading experience was, “if nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea.”
The discussion on the ownership of ideas often draws in opposing arguments that seem to stem from two very different schools of thought. I think that this difference is more about individual success versus collective success in society. There seems to be a focus on the protection and value of the idea for the greater good of society in collectivism as opposed to individualism that has the protection and value of the idea benefiting primarily the producer of that idea. The focus of the latter group is on ownership as opposed to quality of content. American society has historically been individualist in nature, and it acts in ways that aim to benefit the single person. This opposes collectivist traits that focus on benefiting the community as a whole. I think the idea of having intellectual property is a topic that is relevant in many societies of different cultures, but the individualistic nature of American culture seems to relate very closely with the idea of owning thoughts. John Perry Barlow’s work reflects a more fluid process of thinking, which I found very refreshing. He touched on ideas that relate to collectivist values, which is why I think I found his point of view on intellectually property intriguing. While I did not always agree with how he defined information, it broadened my idea on intellectually property and the intersection with new media. The middle of his writing focused on nature of what he is trying to protect: information.
While new media is advancing, ideas are advancing with it. Barlow mentions that if society wants to change the enforcement of intellectually property law, total reform needs to occur, and I agree. There is a lack of competence when it comes to implementation, which does not benefit society in the long term. Barlow further notes, “ Digital technology is detaching information from the physical plane, where property law of all sorts has always found definition.” This transitioned into how Barlow viewed information as an activity, a life form, and a relationship. The humanization of information was intriguing, but I do disagree in some aspects of his writing. I see his thoughts on information as a life form, but I think his ideas get a bit lost in translation as the construction of ideas as ‘things’ is grounded in much of society.
Information as an activity starts breaking down barriers in thought processes about ideas. Seeing information as verb that is part of an experience, not a thing it, can translate into shaping biases during intellectual property discussions. Additionally, information presented as a life form entertains the idea that information is free and itching for change. An example of this could be indigenous languages in Native American communities. If information like a cultural language is not passed on, it runs the risk of dying out. This also exemplifies that thought that ideas and information leave a trail.
Money and cryptography are also another topic that collaborates into ideas being able to be turned into property fundamental problems with a system that requires, through technology, payment for every access to a particular expression. Barlow mentions that this defeats the purpose of seeing that ideas should be available to everyone regardless of their economic station.
Personally, I think new media cultivates creativity in many different communities, and breaking intellectual property ideas could help platforms within new media create a more constant flow of ideas. The internet is a platform where new ideas inspire, create, and blend, together. Inspiration can come from myriad sources, but the issue of digitized property can hinder that. This is not to say digitized property is bad, it is just important to recognize that ownership of certain things can lead to lack of sharing and community. Ideas are meant to be shared, so when the ownership of ideas conflicts with the original purpose of ideas, a dissonance is created in society. Educating a people for their collective benefit seems to be a way to benefit not only the people in society but also the platforms they use.
