Should information be considered a natural resource?

[Audley Strange]

I was passing a library today and it got me thinking about the above. I'm not even sure it makes any sense, but I did begin to ponder on it, inconclusively obviously, otherwise I would not be asking.

What do you think? Is information something natural that should be considered a human right not to be denied, or should it be considered property?

[Coito ergo sum]

Your basic premise is false. Natural resources are not necessarily, or even probably, "human rights not to be denied." Plenty of natural resources, like wood, mulch, corn, gold, silver, coal, and manganese nodules aren't human rights not to be denied.

[klr]

What sort of information could be a "natural resource" in the first place?

[Coito ergo sum]

I think porn, maybe?

[Pappa]

What sort of information could be a "natural resource" in the first place?

Information is in almost all practical senses anthropogenic, as it's data that has been organised in some way.

[Seth]

Information is the property of the creator or recorder. Reducing an observation or thought to durable media is a creative act and that expression of information is the private property of the creator. That's how it is and how it should remain.

Contrary to the oft-heard canard, information does not want to be "free," it's just that cheapskates don't want to pay for information that someone else has labored to compile.

[Coito ergo sum]

Information is the property of the creator or recorder. Reducing an observation or thought to durable media is a creative act and that expression of information is the private property of the creator. That's how it is and how it should remain.

Contrary to the oft-heard canard, information does not want to be "free," it's just that cheapskates don't want to pay for information that someone else has labored to compile.

It's more complicated than that.

Information might be property of the creator or recorder, or it might not. It depends. And, even if it is property of the creator or recorder, that doesn't mean other people can't use it, as they very often can.

Happens here all the time -- copyrighted material is cut and pasted here all the time, with wild abandon. Nobody pays for it.

Much information is free.

EDIT - LOL - I just took and copied Seth's "property" by copying his post.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Information is a resource. Not a natural resource, as I find out every day. In the past week I've digitized 2800 pages of information about US Naval Reserve Officers in WWII.

[Seth]

Information is the property of the creator or recorder. Reducing an observation or thought to durable media is a creative act and that expression of information is the private property of the creator. That's how it is and how it should remain.

Contrary to the oft-heard canard, information does not want to be "free," it's just that cheapskates don't want to pay for information that someone else has labored to compile.

It's more complicated than that.

Information might be property of the creator or recorder, or it might not. It depends. And, even if it is property of the creator or recorder, that doesn't mean other people can't use it, as they very often can.

Happens here all the time -- copyrighted material is cut and pasted here all the time, with wild abandon. Nobody pays for it.

Much information is free.

EDIT - LOL - I just took and copied Seth's "property" by copying his post.

The OP is not a question of what "is" it's a question of what "should be." I simply stated my opinion on how things should be, and you should pay me a dollar every time you replicate my creation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Information is the property of the creator or recorder. Reducing an observation or thought to durable media is a creative act and that expression of information is the private property of the creator. That's how it is and how it should remain.

Contrary to the oft-heard canard, information does not want to be "free," it's just that cheapskates don't want to pay for information that someone else has labored to compile.

It's more complicated than that.

Information might be property of the creator or recorder, or it might not. It depends. And, even if it is property of the creator or recorder, that doesn't mean other people can't use it, as they very often can.

Happens here all the time -- copyrighted material is cut and pasted here all the time, with wild abandon. Nobody pays for it.

Much information is free.

EDIT - LOL - I just took and copied Seth's "property" by copying his post.

The OP is not a question of what "is" it's a question of what "should be." I simply stated my opinion on how things should be, and you should pay me a dollar every time you replicate my creation.

You phrased your post in terms of what "is." "Information is the property of the creator or recorder." That's overly simplistic in terms of what "is" and certainly is not, by any reasonable estimation, what "should be." Suggesting that anything written by anyone is their individual property and can't be used ever for any purpose by anyone would silence the world. It's an example of not thinking the issue through.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

2 + 2 = 4 ©

[Seth]

Information is the property of the creator or recorder. Reducing an observation or thought to durable media is a creative act and that expression of information is the private property of the creator. That's how it is and how it should remain.

Contrary to the oft-heard canard, information does not want to be "free," it's just that cheapskates don't want to pay for information that someone else has labored to compile.

It's more complicated than that.

Information might be property of the creator or recorder, or it might not. It depends. And, even if it is property of the creator or recorder, that doesn't mean other people can't use it, as they very often can.

Happens here all the time -- copyrighted material is cut and pasted here all the time, with wild abandon. Nobody pays for it.

Much information is free.

EDIT - LOL - I just took and copied Seth's "property" by copying his post.

The OP is not a question of what "is" it's a question of what "should be." I simply stated my opinion on how things should be, and you should pay me a dollar every time you replicate my creation.

You phrased your post in terms of what "is." "Information is the property of the creator or recorder." That's overly simplistic in terms of what "is" and certainly is not, by any reasonable estimation, what "should be." Suggesting that anything written by anyone is their individual property and can't be used ever for any purpose by anyone would silence the world. It's an example of not thinking the issue through.

I didn't say it couldn't be used by anyone else, I said that it's the property of the person who creates it, and should remain so, as distinguished from the cheapskate information thieves and plagarist's assertion that "intellectual property" ought to have no meaning or force and that anyone who creates a work of intellectual property axiomatically consents to placing it in the public domain merely by publishing it.

People who advocate against copyright law are just greedy bastards who don't have the wit to create their own intellectual property so they want to be able to steal the labor and intellectual property of others for no better reason than that they want it.

It's a sub-set I suppose of the standard collectivist mindset that everybody should enjoy equality of outcome, even if some people work much harder than others to achieve more.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

^ So how much do you two owe each other now?

[JimC]

A democratic society may make a decision (and many have) to benefit its members by providing services such as free education and libraries.

Generosity of spirit can be its own reward.

[Audley Strange]

A few things.

First. Information is not intellectual property and is NOT covered by copyright any more than an artist can copyright the paint he uses on his canvas. Copyright protects use of created ideas, ideas are made up of information. For example witnessing a car crash is information, writing a short story about it is a created idea. Someone else witnessing the same car crash and writing another story is not in breach of the firsts copyright.

I knew it would descend into that but it is an erroneous position.

People who advocate against copyright law are just greedy bastards who don't have the wit to create their own intellectual property so they want to be able to steal the labor and intellectual property of others for no better reason than that they want it.

Secondly this. Which is absolutely the wrong way round. Most advocates FOR copyright law are not the creators of the work but distribution networks who only make money from the distribution. Since they create nothing they wish to profit from the intellectual property of others because they have no wits to create themselves they try and keep things in copyright even after the creator is long dead, just so they can keep making money.

Also many advocates for altering copyright law or encouraging creative commons licencing are the very creators of works who understand perfectly that while they have a right to be paid for their specific work, others should have the right to use it. There are many people who do support CCL or Nocopyright, who are making a lot of money from their works. The only people who would stand in the way of such are reactionary backwards thinking plutocrats who wish to maintain a status quo which was anachronistic by the end of the Napoleonic era. Greedy parasitic cunts that want paid when a kid cuts a superman out of his comic book to use on school poster, who think that fair use is robbery and who CREATE NOTHING but laws to protect their greed.

Now the distinction between information and ideas is out the way, a final point.

We do not own or come up with information. We perceive it, at best quantify it, but either we accept that it is inherent to nature or we accept that everything we know is a human creation, an artifice, a convenient fiction we use to map our way around an external reality we know nothing about. I think the latter may be approaching solipsism and the former idealism, neither of which sits comfortably with me.

Still if you want to bicker about copyright law, be my guest, its quite amusing.