At 3:50 AM -0400 4/13/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >At 11:33 PM -0400 on 4/12/00, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >> Clearly information about me cannot be "property" in >> the sense that my car is. > >Actually, it isn't but not the way you think. Information can be possessed, >but transaction cost to own it is *extremely* low. Like something >asymptotically approaching the cost of transmission, storage, and, of >course, encrypting it. This misses the point. A focus on transaction costs is misleading for the example here. The issue is _not_ about transaction costs. It is possible that some information or knowledge is gotten at very high initial costs, and very high continuing costs. For example, the knowledge of how to play the piano. Or the knowledge to program in C++. And the "transaction cost to own it" (???) is by no means low: it requires continuing practice, dedication, and expenditure of energy. And yet Declan's point that this knowledge is not property in the sense that a car is recognized as property remains valid. Transaction costs to either get or keep the information are not the interesting axis. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
