Control and Benefit Are Morally Owed to the Source
Richard A. Wright
1. Introduction
2. Reframing the Issues
3. The “High Cost to Industry” Defense
3.1 Raw Materials as a Cost of Doing Business
3.2 The Cost of Correcting Past Inequities as a Cost of Doing Business
3.3 Originator Control of Materials as a Feature of Doing Business
4. The “Private” is “Public” Defense
4.1 Private Information and “Voluntary” Release
4.2 Private Information in the “Public” Domain
4.3 Autonomy as the Basis for Understanding Privacy
5. Toward a Resolution
6. Concluding Thoughts
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.
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
HOME | IN
THE NEWS | RESEARCH
RESOURCES
TEACHING RESOURCES | STUDENT
RESOURCES | LINKS
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