Information as a Commodity - Raw Materials as a Cost of Doing Business - The Research Center on Computing & Society

Text-only Version

Information as a Commodity:

Control and Benefit Are Morally Owed to the Source

Richard A. Wright

Raw Materials as a Cost of Doing Business

It is important to note that the cost increase argument is fundamentally different when comparing the information industry with others, since unlike other industries, the information industry does not pay original sources (the person or entity the information is about) for their material resources. In any other industry, the originating source for all required materials is part of the compensation structure for that industry. Even if, as a steel producer, I used pelletized iron ore, bought from the processor, not the mine, the miner is still compensated for the ore which the processor pelletizes before selling it to me for steel production. Why should the information industry be exempt from this normal state of affairs? They surely cannot argue that the material (information) has no value, for their very existence belies that claim. It may indeed have no intrinsic value, but it clearly has market value. Why then does the industry claim the contrary?

The material needed for operations in other industries has clearly identified costs for the original source; e.g., buying the land under which the oil is discovered, drilling the well, buying recovery and storage equipment, etc. Reimbursement for such costs, at market rates, of course, is accepted as a cost of doing business. Perhaps the information industry believes that it can have legitimate access to information, without cost, because they do not acknowledge any “production” costs for the original source. For basic information, the question would be, “Where is the cost?”

A name costs nothing, so why can it not be used for free?

While interesting, that position is suspect because it makes an unwarranted dichotomy between information and its source, i.e., my name and me. It fails to recognize that my name, of necessity, names me. My name is thus not an abstract entity without any “attachment.” My name, would in fact have no value to the information industry were it not specifically attached to me. Unlike my name, I cost my parents a fair amount, both in original production charges (pre-natal care, delivery, hospital charges, etc.), and in post-production development (food, clothing, housing, schooling, etc.); but there have also been significant costs since then. Without my job, and the income it produces, I (via my name) would be valueless as information. Thus the costs of obtaining my degree, the 18 years experience in achieving the position I now hold, which makes my name valuable to the industry, are all costs that I had to pay for the material the information industry needs for its operations. On the other hand, it is ironic that the only sure way to stay out of most information data bases is to become poor and homeless.

Without belaboring it, there are costs to me for the material that the information industry believes it should have for free. Thus, at least without a substantial argument to show that those costs should not count in their determination of basic value, there is no obvious reason why the industry should be allowed to discount these costs. Importantly, the burden of proof is on the industry to prove its claim, not on me to defend against it, since the material, because it is about me, is mine to begin with. The alternative claim, that just because information is about me it is not mine, is just plain silly.

Another reason for the apparent dissimilarity between the information industry and others may be that it is hard to get iron ore from someone’s mine, or oil from their wells, without their knowledge (at least in large enough measure to effect any significant result). And if one does so, it is without question recognized as theft, as for example when angle drilling from one’s own property into the oil reserves underlying another’s property, or short-weighing ore delivery trucks. On the other hand, information is most often easily obtained without the original source’s knowledge. But does that mean it is legitimately free? The industry seems to think so. Yet, on analogy, if I leave the gate to my oil storage facility unlocked, does that mean anyone may help themselves to the oil, at no charge? Clearly not; so why then is the moral status of the industry’s actions to be seen any differently? The burden of proof lies with the industry to show that their position is correct before that position is accepted as legitimate.

Finally, if someone is asked to give materials for free and does so, then there is no recourse for later claiming theft or royalties, unless of course the agreement was tainted by lies, misrepresentation, scare tactics, etc. As a result, industry in general understands that it has no real choice but to pay for its required materials, unless they can get them donated, which is unlikely. The information industry, on the other hand, operates as if its required materials had been donated, because the industry has defined for itself unique notions of privacy and legitimate access to original materials. But more on this in a moment.

Back to the top

Go to: 3.2 The Cost of Correcting Past Inequities as a Cost of Doing Business

Home > Research Resources > Computing and Privacy > Information as a Commodity

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society