Value in Services: The Re-discovered Reality of Information

A while ago I read an entry by Kevin Kelly on "generative values," linked on http://blog.p2pfoundation.net. I responded there, but I figure it's worth a post here. Kelly's realization seems silly to me, because it's hardly new. I'd hope his realization would be "in a world of free copies, content creation is a service market." Instead, the wheel is reinvented as Kelly discovers how value is created with services, and categories those values. Anyone who already creates content within a service model (most corporate coder, writers, etc) should already know these (but may not). So should anyone that understands the difference between nonrival and rival goods. I can't entirely blame Kelly though, because it seems like the whole world has been so bombarded with the bogus metaphor of "intellectual property" that seeing information in a different way is startling.

However, I think it's interesting to see why we're going toward a service market in information entirely, so here goes.

We can already see that as distribution costs become near-zero, there are two directions or trends for a society that treats nonrival goods as rival goods, and creative works as property:
1. Restrict technology in an attempt to create artificially high distribution costs.
2. Develop and evolve a service market model for creative (nonrival) work creation.

As expected, we see a mix of these two.

The first is a combination of “old guard” and established interests, particularly corporate interests.

The second is seen in the more technologically savvy, and generally younger generations; they know near-zero distribution cost is the reality and nonrival goods are not “property;” they see artificial scarcity through technological surveillance and restriction as an unjustified smothering of freedom. This oppression is seen as unfair, and reverse psychology comes into play: the harder they are pushed, the harder they push back, going to great lengths and personal risk to fight, undermine, and protest the system.

I think we’re seeing a shift to the creation of these “generative values” by creators, but we also need new compensation models enabled through user/creator-owned “free” commons: what I think of as a “commons agora,” which maintains near-zero cost of value transfer (payment/compensation) and growing layers of metadata that can be mined and used (via searches, categorization, ranking, communities) to connect creators and customers. Complementary development of these components, along with ensuring continual user freedom via GPL-like licensing, should increasingly create wealth and further undermine attempts at technological restriction.

We must also consider who owns the property that enables transmission, and how open the commons can truly be without opening those commons as well. The “old guard,” of course, is already leveraging this control against user freedom, under the euphemism “Quality of Service.”

These trends and general socioeconomic mechanics are why I’m working on describing a socioeconomic model that applies a service economy (sounds funky, I know) to both nonrival and rival goods. I think we’re already headed that direction, but we need to establish human accountability and freedom as a whole before someone dictates it for us.