I know I’m behind the curve on this one, but I just saw Everything Is A Remix. If you haven’t seen it, I strongly encourage you to check it out. Appropriately enough, I’ve had an idea brewing in the back of my mind for a while now that this series plugs nicely into.
Information is not a commodity, not in the tradition sense, and yet it is treated like one. The concept of intellectual property is that you can own and control the distribution of discrete ideas, much like how you can own and distribute physical goods. This is self-evidently wrong. Ideas, media and other non-material goods can be copied and distributed to any corner of the world in an instant, for no more cost than bandwidth and data storage. And while if I want to sell a car I’ve built in New Zealand I have to actively try to ship the units there, to restrict selling information in New Zealand I have to actively try to identify and block Kiwis. Finite stock and regions don’t naturally exist on the web, not without them being imposed.
This has been in my mind ever since the US Ambassador to Australia famously complained that Aussies pirate Game of Thrones too much. But what are our alternatives? It’s not on free to air television, and shows that do make it to our networks are butchered (for example, the Futurama movies: they appeared on our screen months after airing in the US, were shown as three separate episodes each thus ruining the flow of each story, and had lines cut to make room for advertisements). Foxtel, which has agreed to fastrack Game of Thrones (if not other shows,) is a prohibitively expensive subscription service with no option to buy just the one show you want without getting loads of crap as well. And alternatives to the traditional broadcast networks that embrace the internet rather than trying to fight it? In Australia, you get this:
The ambassador touched a nerve here. In Australia we get games, shows, movies later, for a higher cost and sometimes lower quality than in the States. And while that may make sense for anything you need to assemble and ship around the world, it doesn’t for bytes. The fact that the torrents show up at the same time for everyone around the world proves that different costs, dates and viewing options for different regions is a deliberate choice distributors make, not restrictions imposed by economics.
These distributors are still operating under the 20th Century paradigm of the scarcity and controllability of information. While back in the day you could control who buys a CD and for how much, these days you can’t control who downloads the contents of a CD – only whether they’ll pay you or torrent it. And these companies are digging in their heels, as we have seen in the US with SOPA and its ilk, trying to retain the old-world model in a vastly new environment. But as long as the internet is around, business models that try to ignore it are doomed.
But this is just this start. The real impact of accessible information hasn’t yet been felt.
Right now everyone is talking about the rise of China, watching in awe as they lift a billion peasants out of poverty, fashioning into the world’s second largest and still growing economy. The first step of this transformation is manufacturing. Just like Germany, Japan, Spain and dozens of others, they have fuelled economic growth out of poverty by taking farmers and getting them to mass produce cheap goods in factories. Meanwhile in the US, advances in robotics are promising a renaissance of their manufacturing industry. While there is more to any economy than manufacturing, it is a key part in economies both developing and advanced.
And what freeflowing information will inevitably do is destroy this model utterly.
The global availability of non-material goods – movies, music, ideas – is just the start. Domestic 3D printers are on the verge of becoming ubiquitous – first in wealthy countries, then in developing countries as prices fall, quality rises and their value becomes obvious. The advanced machines can do more than just print plastic replicas of figurines; they can create sophisticated mechanical devices, chemical compounds, food, even organs. When this technology becomes available at every level of society, the free information of the internet will undergo a phase change and become physical. Scans of objects and blueprints for components will be just a click away. Material goods will be as accessible as TV shows are now, and we’ll be having the same antiquated arguments about stealing objects which you aren’t allowed to legally buy.
Economics is based on the assumption that resources are scarce. But with infinite intellectual resources and material goods at your fingertips, most of what is now scarce becomes limitless. Raw materials will still have a price, but the ability to scan and replicate most objects will lead manufacturing industries through the futureshock that media is now going through. Unless most countries choose to ban the internet and/or 3D printers – technologies with such obvious and universal economic advantages – the economies of the world will have change forced upon them at the very foundations.
What this will look like, I’m not sure. There’s a chance that the law will somehow curtail this, despite the drawbacks. After all, lawyers are surprisingly creative when it comes to not looking at the bigger picture. But I see the collapse of economics as we know it as being a painful, perhaps fatal transition. One possibility I see is sharp booms as GDP, the value of all finished goods, skyrockets as every home produces appliances galore. This would be followed by a sharp crash as entire industries collapse. In terms of real GDP per capita, we would see vast losses which would cause unrest and panic, and yet in material terms, people would be richer than ever. Food would still be put on the table and people would still have the latest gadgets and gismos, but there’d be no money floating around. Energy would have to be free in a world where any home can print their own generators, and yet high unemployment and inflation (even stripped of much of their impact) will likely cause turmoil.
Certain businesses would thrive. A throwaway culture would arise stronger than ever which would lead to a lot of waste, but with such a demand for raw materials this junk would be salvaged. This hunger for raw materials and easy access to brainpower and rapid prototypers would see a new space race, eager to pull down space junk and asteroids to where they are needed. Bandwidth would become a valued resource, one that like food would be considered a basic human right. Services, unprintable and undownloadable, would endure until advances in automation squeezed people out. Niche luxuries will exist (people will always have an appetite for ‘farm-grown steak’) but will employ very few people.
Money as it exists now wouldn’t be relevant – too many people could do away with it utterly yet still live comfortable lives. If we are flexible and creative, we might embrace alternatives. New currency, backed perhaps by the nation’s data storage or bandwidth, would come into play to moderate what remaining consumption could be. People would earn little from these industries but would need little, with so much being freely available.
Then again, if the ubiquity of production does lead to anarchy, maybe we won’t pull through it. Maybe the traditional view of economics is too powerful to give up, even when we are free of it for the first time in history.
I started off by talking about how information isn’t a traditional commodity, not anymore. It is vitally important to the future of the entertainment industry, of our thinktanks, of our inventors and authors and programmers and artists, that we properly embrace this new reality. Companies that trade in information need to allow consumers to access and, yes, pay for their creations if they want to remain profitable. But it’s also important for the rest of society. More and more industries will transition online, whether by choice or not, but if we let laws hold this process back it will kill the promising future cyberspace offers.
This disintegration of boundaries and limitations caused by the internet will only intensify over time. We need to position ourselves so that we move seamlessly into this profitable future, rather than be torn apart by it.