The crumbling paradigm
I've been meaning to write a blog entry for quite some time now but I've been busy with my studies lately. However, I finally found the time to do it, so here goes. If you have been wondering why the InformedTrades mission statement is what it is and why we share knowledge so opely and without a pricetag on it, this one's for you so keep on reading.As long as history has been recorded, people have always had a primal urge to possess things. Even today, our modern society is deep down based upon the right of property and upon clear rules how those rights are affected by certain actions. These laws also dictate what an individual can own and what they cannot. We often give these laws moral justification without too much thought. There is no question in our mind whether we can own an apple, likewise there is no question that no individual can claim ownership over the atmosphere of our planet, for example. In other words, we often take property rights as a paradigm -- as a given.
However, in the course of history, there have been times when a group of individuals have claimed ownership over something absurd and exploited that right at the cost of others until later in history those rights have been revoked as immoral and iniquitous.
One example of such an episode is human slavery -- individuals claiming ownership over other individuals. Whereas slavery seems like an outrageous violation of human rights to us, there were times when it was considered perfectly normal and justified.
The reason why I'm bringing this all up is that right here and right now, at the dawn of the Internet era, it seems obvious to me that another such a period of absurd property rights is coming to an end. For the last few centuries, people have considered it to be absolutely normal that information can be someone's property. To me, this pattern of thought is exceedingly absurd and ridiculous -- and I refuse to accept it.
Let's sit back for a moment and actually think about this for a while. What possible reason would anyone have to want to own information but to gain a competetitve advantage over others?
(Privacy is of course another but since personal information has no relevance in this discussion on the property nature of information, I'll leave that aspect out of this)
You are probably thinking right now that "Well, they put the time and effort into the research and developement, so they should be rewarded, so its perfectly ok that they get the protection of a proprietary right for their product."
Well, it's not ok. And I'll tell you why.
Most importantly, the absurdity of the idea of possessing information is related to the nature of information itself. Information can be shared and passed on without a cost of anykind. It can be multiplied for free. Each individual person has a unique pattern of thinking and a unique way of combining existing information to generate new knowledge. If we think of brains as production facilities of knowledge, information is the resource on which brains operate. Imagine if Einstein hadn't had access to prior advances in physics. He would have never been able to combine those pieces together in a unique manner (since he wouldn't have had those pieces to begin with) and to create the Theory of Relativity -- which in turn inspired other scientists to make even more complicated theories. Imagine if Einstein would have kept his discoveries from everyone in order to gain a competitive advantage.
In holding out information from others we lose any potential new knowledge that they might be able to generate by combining that unique set of knowledge that they have in their brain. This means that we also lose any potential knowledge that we ourselves might be able to generate based on that new knowledge of that other individual combined with our existing knowledge. Proprietary laws make the total human brain capacity into a thinking machine which is not operating properly. It's like a computer processor which has severed connections.So, holding out information from other parties also means that the same technological advances have to be discovered multiple times. This is completely counter-productive, any frickin' way you slice it.
While we humans have an urge to possess things, we also have an urge to share knowledge. That is the reason why we have a language to communicate in the first place. It goes against our fundamental nature to not to share knowledge and thoughts.
Another important aspect of the matter is that producers of a product are consumers of multiple products in other categories. The gravity of this principle can easily be illustrated by using InformedTrades as an example. Why do we share what we know and freely give up any competitive advantage that it might have given us? Because no one is that smart alone. By sharing that small portion of information we had that no one else knew, we gain access other people's discoveries in other areas of trading that we would have never figured out on our own.
Let me clarify this point a little further. Say you were working in a company that makes washing machines and had a proprietary right to a certain technical implication. Since that implication is so ground-breaking, everyone will want to buy your company's washing machines. This will effectively create a monopoly, which in turn causes diminished efficiency. Your company's customer service, for example, doesn't need to be so good as other companies, because people will buy your superior product anyway, as they don't have much of a choice.
But here's the thing. After you punch out and go home, you notice your washing machine is broken. You decide to buy a new one and naturally you want that superior model of your company. As a consumer, you now have to suffer from worse customer service because that proprietary law that your company has. Now, imagine the same happens in every other industry and the economy is filled by "proprietary monopolies". Your company may have the advantage over other washing machine companies but as a consumer you lose out -- in every single industry. And as we are all consumers, we all lose.
"But without proprietary laws technological developement will stop!"
No it won't. In fact, there is no evidence that would even suggest that it would come to a halt. Such arguments are often based on the fact that when proprietary laws were first introduced in Europe over 200 years ago, the amount of scientific research increased. Of course it did since everyone now had to reinvent existing technology for themselves. Besides, it is a hasty conclusion that the proprietary laws can be credited for the increase of scientific research, completely ignoring the fact that the industrial revolution started around the same time. Moreover, that increase of scientific research did not correlate with the rate of technological developement accordingly during that time.
However, whether we agree on the necessity of proprietary rights or not, there is one thing which we cannot dispute: in the modern Internet society the flow of information cannot be controlled by anyone. Therefore proprietary laws will eventually fail. The market environment has been permanently altered and there is no going back to the old model of encapsulated controllable information.
Total Comments 18
Comments
(Must register to comment)-
An awesome movement
This conviction behind this entry is very inspirational...
I am guessing you do not do this for flattery but this to me is quite heart warming to read.
I recently switched to Linux after only ever knowing of the other mainstream product and again it impresses me that there are people who willingly spend time on this and do charge others for using their end product.
Yet Linux (the free community shared product) works better than the other mainstream item.
This idea of sharing is very uplifting and gives a lot of faith in humanity (lots of people out there who do not do things only for themselves but to better all of us).
I could go on and on but I think you get the message.
Cheers,
PhilPosted 11-23-2009 at 08:41 PM by cholofelipe
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
An awesome movement
Hey Phil.Quote:Originally Posted by cholofelipe
This conviction behind this entry is very inspirational...
I am guessing you do not do this for flattery but this to me is quite heart warming to read.
I recently switched to Linux after only ever knowing of the other mainstream product and again it impresses me that there are people who willingly spend time on this and do charge others for using their end product.
Yet Linux (the free community shared product) works better than the other mainstream item.
This idea of sharing is very uplifting and gives a lot of faith in humanity (lots of people out there who do not do things only for themselves but to better all of us).
I could go on and on but I think you get the message.
Cheers,
Phil
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that such phenomena as Linux and Wikipedia are extremely good examples of what humans are willing to do for the collective if artificial barriers of information flow are removed.
I also absolutely loathe the way how big record labels invest millions of dollars or euros to forge mainstream artists designed for as wide a customer base as possible -- just so they can benefit from the proprietary rights. They don't make music for the sake of expressing themselves artistically, they make music for profit.
What's even worse is that they also try to stop other people from remixing their licensed content and from expressing themselves artistically. In my opinion, it is so ridiculous that words do not even begin to describe it. It is perfectly analogous to a book author forbidding everyone from having a conversation on the plot of the book. Completely absurd.
Luckily the s**t's outta luck for the record industry because in the Internet, consumers and producers are the very same people. There are millions and millions of people out there who make music just for the sheer pleasure of expressing themselves and of the pleasure of sharing their art.
I am optimistic that in the years to come, music will be music again and not some absurd conveyor belt industry.
-Demolition ManPosted 11-23-2009 at 08:59 PM by Demolition Man
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Good Stuff
The Internet has definitely been the next wave of technological and social change. You can get a first class education online.
Free Online Course Materials | MIT OpenCourseWare
Singularity University
Moving forward, I guess the only thing that has credibility is who has the most amount of money at any given time period. For now, its Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim and Bill Gates. The question then becomes; who's next?:
Great post Demolition Man. Glad to see someone has the balls to speak the truth
Posted 11-24-2009 at 12:57 AM by cgriffit
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Good Stuff
Thank you. I'm glad you liked it.Quote:Originally Posted by cgriffit
Great post Demolition Man. Glad to see someone has the balls to speak the truth
I also have to say that I am very grateful to get to live during this time when there's more information available than ever before in the history of the human civilization and it is all available to anyone who is willing to receive it. The fact that we can look up any piece of info from the Internet at any time and at any place pretty much makes us the wisest people who ever walked the Earth. That thought blows my mind every single day.
It's a pity, though, how many people completely waste this opportunity to access any knowledge by sitting in front of their TV most of their sparetime watching Big Brother and the American Idol and other such "reality" TV crap. They have every opportunity to enrich their understanding of the world and they choose to be ignorant like 12th century peasants. Add a suffrage for those people into the mix and what you get is a world full of conflicts.
-Demolition ManPosted 11-24-2009 at 01:02 AM by Demolition Man
Updated 11-24-2009 at 01:27 AM by Demolition Man [Show Appreciation] What's This? -
Yeah, I don't even watch TV. The only programs that seem to be worth watching are interviews from Charlie Rose, PBS Frontline, and market commentary from Bloomberg, FT.com and any other subject that I find interesting from a simple google search. But I do have to agree, most people are regressing by watching TV. Most people do not want to exercise their brain and would rather vegetate like zombies. It amazes me how people follow each other like sheep from what they watch on TV. Just look at the housing market. Perfect example on how everyone followed each other to the slaughter house.Posted 11-24-2009 at 02:11 AM by cgriffit
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Hey Demo,
Great post on information sharing. You don't mind if i use this whole article for my argumentative assignment? LOL I share the same thoughts but i admit, i sometimes really want to keep the good information for myself and not reveal it. That's pure greed, please pardon me for that.
However, i think there is a sort of psychology effect the barriers of information sharing produce on inventors and everyone. Maybe it makes everyone a little more innovative. Information sharing is good, however it's really useless to have all the information if you can't use it... maybe knowing alot makes us happy? Who knows. Certainly all of my freakin classmates are on facebook all day and are talking about korean actors being so hot and sexy. They will soon burn out i guess.
And about wasting time, everytime i watch some stupid sh*t on the net of TV, i know i'm watching other people's work. So i'd better get to work, or i'm loosing out.
Maybe when mankind has to evacuate Earth and fly to somewhere somewhen will humans share information because this barrier of communication has made us outdated that we can't support our own lives when times have changes for the future.
Enjoyed reading your post. Good job!
ForexerPosted 11-24-2009 at 08:42 AM by forexer
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
No, I don't mind if you use my article.Quote:Originally Posted by forexer
Hey Demo,
Great post on information sharing. You don't mind if i use this whole article for my argumentative assignment? LOL I share the same thoughts but i admit, i sometimes really want to keep the good information for myself and not reveal it. That's pure greed, please pardon me for that.
Thanks for the feedback!Quote:Enjoyed reading your post. Good job!
Forexer
-Demolition ManPosted 11-24-2009 at 12:38 PM by Demolition Man
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Hi Demo,
I sure don't like the way companies like AT&T and Verizon are joining M$ and google to carve up the internet, but it will probably happen because there's just too much profit to be made that way.Posted 11-24-2009 at 04:32 PM by Magic 
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Hey Demo,
Great article! I think sharing is no longer valued in society because it is all about ME instead of what is best for everyone.
AliPosted 11-25-2009 at 04:59 AM by uahmed
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Hmmmmm, Interesting post. Like I do with my trading, I think Ill take the other side..
EktraderPosted 11-25-2009 at 05:19 AM by Ektrader
Updated 11-25-2009 at 07:12 AM by Ektrader [Show Appreciation] What's This? -
Great thoughts Demo man.
Now let's take this a little further. So, should all colleges, specialty schools and universities be free? If you have a gift of teaching, singing, or acting, and someone is willing to pay you for your talents, should you do them for free? If I have a passion for painting, but I have buyers willing to pay for them. Should I give away all of my paintings away for free? should the "how to book" genre just disappear?
Yes, information on most things is easy to come by in the internet age. It also has a value just like everything else. The value is different from person to person, but there is value. Most people here on IFT love the free information (that's why most of us are here). What I also know is that 95% of the information here will be discarded and forgotten by most people, no matter how good or bad the information is. With that being said, I don't see any problem with someone putting a monetary value on information they deem as valuable. As a person, you can choose to pay, or not to pay for schools or specialty information. JMO
EktraderPosted 11-25-2009 at 06:15 AM by Ektrader
Updated 11-25-2009 at 07:10 AM by Ektrader [Show Appreciation] What's This? -
Yes but for a different reason. As a matter of fact, schools, colleges and universities are tuition-free in Finland. One year in university costs around 80 euros, including health insurance and full dental.Quote:Originally Posted by Ektrader
Great thoughts Demo man.
Now let's take this a little further. So, should all colleges, specialty schools and universities be free?
Teaching is labor, not information (but in fact a process of replicating information). Work should be compensated accordingly but if you manage to aquire the information elsewhere, you shouldn't have to pay that specific teacher for the information, only for his labor.Quote:If you have a gift of teaching, singing, or acting, and someone is willing to pay you for your talents, should you do them for free?
Likewise, a band performing in a concert hall is work and they should be compensated accordingly. But if you record that gig with a camera and show it to your friend later, you shouldn't have to pay the band for the information.
Paintings require materials like canvas, paint and brushes and the painting may have sentimental value to the painter so it is fair that the owner of the painting (painting in concrete, tactile sense, not in abstract sense) is compensated for the unique original work, as he actually has to give it up if he sells it. However, if someone took a photograph or made a replica of your painting, they shouldn't have to pay you for the visual information.Quote:If I have a passion for painting, but I have buyers willing to pay for them. Should I give away all of my paintings away for free?
Not sure what you mean by this..?Quote:should the "how to book" genre just disappear?
Atmosphere also has value yet it cannot be owned either.Quote:Yes, information on most things is easy to come by in the internet age. It also has a value just like everything else. The value is different from person to person, but there is value.
The difference between information and products or services is that products and services are consumed, information is replicated. Sometimes replicating information requires somekind of a service and in those cases, it is ok to charge for the service but never for the information itself.Quote:Most people here on IFT love the free information (that's why most of us are here). What I also know is that 95% of the information here will be discarded and forgotten by most people, no matter how good or bad the information is. With that being said, I don't see any problem with someone putting a monetary value on information they deem as valuable. As a person, you can choose to pay, or not to pay for schools or specialty information. JMO
Ektrader
-Demolition ManPosted 11-25-2009 at 02:31 PM by Demolition Man
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Yes, in the end it all comes down to the prisoner's dilemma of the game theory of economics. The collective benefits the most if everyone makes a small sacrifice.Quote:Originally Posted by uahmed
Hey Demo,
Great article! I think sharing is no longer valued in society because it is all about ME instead of what is best for everyone.
Ali
-Demolition ManPosted 11-25-2009 at 02:35 PM by Demolition Man
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Hi Demo,
I guess I see what your're saying although I'm not quite sure of the differences. Anyway, great post and food for thought.
Yeah, when I was posting, I wasn't talking about my service. I'm more or less being paid for my time and effort. Not the information.Quote:The difference between information and products or services is that products and services are consumed, information is replicated. Sometimes replicating information requires somekind of a service and in those cases, it is ok to charge for the service but never for the information itself.
Happy TradingPosted 11-25-2009 at 03:12 PM by Ektrader
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
sharing os knowledge, freedom, progress? that's why the pirate party makes it in scandinavia/finnland into parlaments and that's why the copyright on my own website tells the folks " ... just use it, repeat it, improve it ... do not forget remember the source ... and if you wanna publish it, just send me an (free) copy of your stuff :-) ..."
btw, i can't follow why is einstein's relativity theory soooo important and i also do not know if there is a single useful thing which really helps people based on that theory ... (u see, it's a long time ago i've been at school :-), but of course there are also many nice examples like linux, wikipedia, etc. provided, so it is sure the 'message' of demo-man's article is really understood
ps: do you think some next generation of homo sapiens (which is not sooooo profit oriented like ours) will peacefully share also food, vaccines, natural resources, ... ???Posted 11-25-2009 at 04:32 PM by jaro g.
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
My point in the article was that now with the introduction of the Internet, information cannot be encapsulated and controlled like back in the days. That is why proprietary laws, for one, will fail and ultimately lead to the paradigm of information being something ownable, eventually crumbling.Quote:Originally Posted by Ektrader
Yeah, when I was posting, I wasn't talking about my service. I'm more or less being paid for my time and effort. Not the information.
Happy Trading
The reason why people started thinking about information as something valuable and something ownable happened because while the society grew more complicated, people still wanted to be compensated for their time and effort, just like you said. The problem is that they decided to do it through a system which they had been used to -- a system which works well with tactile goods. Nevertheless, the system worked fine as long as information was in most cases transferred in capsulated form: on a floppy disk, on a CD etc. That is, information was analogous to any other product.
But since that is changing very quickly, the defected system is starting to malfunction more and more every day.
-Demolition ManPosted 11-25-2009 at 05:23 PM by Demolition Man
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
-
Yes, I'm a member of the Finnish Pirate Party myself.Quote:Originally Posted by jaro g.
sharing os knowledge, freedom, progress? that's why the pirate party makes it in scandinavia/finnland into parlaments and that's why the copyright on my own website tells the folks " ... just use it, repeat it, improve it ... do not forget remember the source ... and if you wanna publish it, just send me an (free) copy of your stuff :-) ..."
Einstein's Theory of Relativity was remarkable in its time because it combined all the existing pieces of modern physics into one comprehensible theory which took a new perspective to the cosmos.Quote:btw, i can't follow why is einstein's relativity theory soooo important and i also do not know if there is a single useful thing which really helps people based on that theory ... (u see, it's a long time ago i've been at school :-), but of course there are also many nice examples like linux, wikipedia, etc. provided, so it is sure the 'message' of demo-man's article is really understood
An example of a practical application based on the Theory of Relativity?
The Global Positioning System. The GPS satellites are moving so fast relative to us that they have a very different conception of time than we do (because passing of time in an object depends on its relative speed). The Lorentz transformation must be factored into all GPS co-ordinates, otherwise the system is inaccurate in the scale of dozens to hundreds of meters. So, GPS is in the end based on accurate clocks and it only works because Einstein understood that there is no simultanity. Time is subjective to everyone.
As a matter of fact, Einstein also stated that there is no time nor space. There is only 'spacetime' -- which of course, is also relative in numerous ways. Mass causes curvature in the spacetime fabric and because energy and mass are the same thing, so does energy. Curvature of spacetime causes "the passing of time" to slow down and objects to seemingly accelerate. This phenomenon is also called gravity.
I attended a lecture at the university on this topic as well a few years back.
There are countless other examples as well, like nuclear power plants, for example, which are basically based on Einstein's equation that E=mc^2, that is, mass and energy are the same thing. Nuclear fission power plants turn mass into energy. Nuclear fission weapons or atomic bombs do the same thing but much more violently.
I don't think homo sapiens will ever peacefully share anything scarce enough. But through sharing of information and technological developement it may one day be possible to erase scarcity completely.Quote:ps: do you think some next generation of homo sapiens (which is not sooooo profit oriented like ours) will peacefully share also food, vaccines, natural resources, ... ???
-Demolition ManPosted 11-25-2009 at 06:22 PM by Demolition Man
Updated 11-25-2009 at 06:28 PM by Demolition Man [Show Appreciation] What's This? -
hi Demolition Man,
thx 4 your response; i believe i have to read it tomorrow again (of course, not so late at night) in order 2 understand 30% of that
thx goodness, i've studied mathematics and didn't make my brain crazy with all that physics, time, space, timespace and nuclear weapons ... + thx goodness again, at least that investing stuff is sooooo easy
good n8,
j.Posted 11-25-2009 at 07:22 PM by jaro g.
[Show Appreciation]
What's This?
